Jack M. Grossman

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b).

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) relating to investigative detention at the hospital and the Over 80 charge was dismissed.

The trial proceeded on the impaired driving charge.

The court found that civilian witnesses provided credible evidence of the accident, the accused's identity as the driver, and indicia of impairment including stumbling, smell of alcohol, and unresponsiveness.

The court concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and that the Crown proved all essential elements of impaired driving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conviction was entered.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL following a motor vehicle collision on September 8, 2012.

The Crown withdrew the Over 80 charge after brief evidence.

At trial, the Crown's case rested primarily on the observations of Sergeant Crane, who noted glossy eyes and a scent of alcohol, combined with Intoxilyzer readings.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of contemporaneous notes regarding key observations, the lack of observable signs of impairment at the scene, and the absence of expert evidence relating the BAC readings to the accused's driving ability.

The charge was dismissed.

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 Impaired Care or Control and Over 80 Care or Control following a motor vehicle incident.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence based on alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's right to counsel under section 10(b) was violated when the officer detained him pending the arrival of an approved screening device but refused to allow him to contact counsel via his cellular telephone, despite knowing a significant delay would occur and that counsel would realistically be available during business hours on a Tuesday afternoon.

The court excluded the evidence and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath sample evidence based on alleged breaches of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The accused argued that special circumstances existed due to language barriers and that the police failed to take appropriate measures to ensure meaningful comprehension of his rights.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, and that no special circumstances existed requiring additional language accommodations.

The Charter applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with obstructing a peace officer by providing false identification, failing to comply with recognizance conditions, failing to attend court, possession of cannabis, and having liquor in an open container.

The central issue was whether the vehicle stop was lawful and whether Charter rights were violated.

The court found that the vehicle was stopped solely because it was a rental vehicle, with no traffic violation or other lawful basis for the stop.

The court determined that the accused, as a passenger, was subject to an unlawful detention and seizure without reasonable cause.

The court excluded all evidence and utterances pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to serious Charter breaches, and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a minor complainant.

The Crown sought to introduce similar fact evidence from two additional witnesses (sisters of the complainant) alleging similar sexual misconduct by the accused.

The trial judge conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the similar fact evidence under the established legal framework.

The court found that while there were similarities in the conduct alleged by all three witnesses, the potential for collusion, combined with material inconsistencies in the evidence and credibility concerns, meant that the probative value of the similar fact evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The similar fact evidence was therefore excluded from trial.