Imran Shaikh

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol in his system following a motor vehicle collision on October 3, 2014.

The Crown relied on breath sample readings from an Intoxilyzer 8000C device taken outside the two-hour presumption window, supported by expert toxicology evidence projecting the accused's blood alcohol content at the time of driving.

The defence argued the accused had consumed less alcohol than the Crown's hypothetical suggested and attributed observed symptoms to fatigue and an acid reflux condition.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt both impairment and a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

A stay was entered on the impaired driving count to avoid double punishment.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol in his system after police responded to a trouble call at a restaurant.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated through unlawful detention and search.

The initial detention by the first officer lacked lawful justification, being based on a vague safety concern rather than investigative grounds.

The subsequent detention and search by two other officers, who stopped and searched all vehicles leaving the scene, was excessive and unjustified given the nature of the incident (a fight with a bottle, not a weapons offense).

The accused was not informed of his right to counsel during the detention related to the fight investigation.

The breath samples were obtained as a direct result of these unlawful detentions and were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Without the breath evidence, the Crown could not prove the charge.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court found that the accused's section 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated due to special circumstances arising from his limited English proficiency and the police's failure to secure an interpreter.

The evidence of the refusal was excluded and that charge was dismissed.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired care or control based on evidence that he occupied the driver's seat, attempted to move the vehicle, and displayed signs of impairment.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's breath samples were taken outside the two-hour window required for statutory presumptions to apply.

The defence advanced a Carter defence based on the accused's testimony regarding his alcohol consumption, supported by expert toxicology evidence suggesting his BAC would have been below the legal limit.

The court rejected the defence evidence as unreliable and inconsistent with the expert evidence regarding the accuracy of the breathalyzer readings.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess blood alcohol following a complaint of erratic driving.

A civilian witness with police experience observed the accused's vehicle weaving across lanes at excessive speeds.

Police attended the accused's residence and observed signs of impairment.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples showing excess blood alcohol.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the arrest, detention, and search.

The court rejected all Charter arguments, finding the police conduct lawful and the evidence admissible.

The court convicted the accused on both charges based on the totality of evidence including the civilian witness observations, police observations of impairment indicators, and the breath sample results.