Ivana Denisov

Rehan Riaz, facing multiple charges including impaired driving and driving disqualified, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, including new sureties and efforts to secure addiction counselling, and arguments regarding the length of pre-trial custody potentially exceeding a fit sentence.

The court found that the new supervision plan was not a material change but accepted that the potential length of pre-trial incarceration, possibly exceeding a likely sentence, constituted a material change.

The court granted judicial interim release with specific conditions, including residing with his sister, supervision, and prohibitions on alcohol, non-prescriptive drugs, and driving.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a roadside stop on May 25, 2016.

The defendant alleged several Charter breaches and sought to exclude breath test results.

The principal issue was the extent to which police must attempt to facilitate contact with counsel of choice before offering duty counsel as an alternative.

The court found no breach of the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter, as the defendant had expressed willingness to speak to duty counsel if his preferred counsel could not be reached, and the officer made reasonable efforts to contact the preferred counsel before offering the alternative.

The breath test results were admitted into evidence, and the defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The accused was charged with refusing to comply with a lawful breath demand contrary to the Criminal Code.

Following a citizen complaint of impaired driving, police located the accused in the driver's seat of a vehicle with the engine running.

After failing an Approved Screening Device test, the accused was arrested and taken to the station where he was demanded to provide breath samples on an Approved Instrument.

The accused refused to comply.

The trial addressed multiple Charter issues including care or control, reasonable grounds for the demand, timing of the demand, the validity of the refusal, potential reasonable excuse based on mistrust of police, and alleged breaches of sections 10(a), 10(b), 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The court found the Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected all Charter defences.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The trial was scheduled for two days in November 2016, but the second day could not be completed due to court unavailability.

A Crown witness failed to appear on the adjourned date in January 2017, resulting in a further adjournment to February 2017.

The total delay from information to trial completion was 529 days.

After deducting defence delay, the net delay was 482 days, falling below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice cases.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate the case took markedly longer than it should have and dismissed the application.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit after police found him outside his vehicle in an intoxicated state following a collision with a parked car.

The Crown conceded it could not prove the offence of operating over 80 due to lack of evidence establishing the time of the accident.

The Crown alternatively sought a conviction for the included offence of having care and control of a motor vehicle over 80.

The court dismissed the charge, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual care and control of the vehicle.

The evidence was equally consistent with the defendant remaining at the scene to comply with his statutory duty under the Highway Traffic Act.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device (ASD) pursuant to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that a police officer made a lawful demand for a breath sample at a RIDE spot check, which the accused refused.

The defence argued that no proper demand was made and that the accused was not advised of the consequences of refusal before arrest.

The court found that the officer did make a proper demand, the accused unequivocally refused to comply, and that there is no legal requirement for an officer to advise a driver of consequences before making a demand.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood following a RIDE spot check.

The impaired charge was dismissed due to lack of evidence of impairment.

On the Over 80 charge, the defence raised multiple Charter breaches including timing of breath samples, failure to videotape, lost evidence, lack of reasonable grounds, and denial of right to counsel.

The court rejected all Charter breach arguments and found the Crown proved the accused operated a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

Conviction entered.

The Crown brought an application under section 123(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act seeking access to youth records of the accused for use in two separate Superior Court prosecutions (one involving four counts of attempted murder and one count of aggravated assault, and another involving a charge of first degree murder), as well as for transmission to the Parole Board of Canada.

The accused had previously been convicted of first degree murder and was serving a life sentence with parole ineligibility for twenty-five years.

The court dismissed the Crown's application as premature, finding that while the Crown had a valid and substantial interest in the records, access was not necessary in the interests of the proper administration of justice at that time.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for a sexual assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention on a secure forensic unit.

He argued he should be transferred to a general forensic unit or given a hybrid order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's ongoing inappropriate sexual behaviour and the increased risk to others if supervision were decreased.