J. Armenise

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on charges of impaired driving and 'over 80'.

The trial judge had excluded the respondent's roadside admission of driving, finding it was statutorily compelled, and subsequently excluded the breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by allowing the respondent to testify only on the Charter voir dire after allegedly agreeing to a blended trial, and challenged the findings on statutory compulsion, adequacy of reasons, and the s. 24(2) analysis.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for 'over 80'.

Police officers observed a vehicle stuck in the snow in the side yard of a residence and entered the property to investigate, suspecting an accident or medical emergency.

They found the appellant, who lived at the residence, and formed grounds to arrest him for impaired driving.

The appellant argued the police entry violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the police had lawful authority to enter the property under both the implied licence doctrine and the common law ancillary powers doctrine, and had reasonable grounds for the arrest and breath demand.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of having care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg.

The trial judge had excluded breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a breach of the accused’s s. 8 privacy rights arising from continuous video monitoring of a detention cell while the accused used the toilet.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by finding a sufficient nexus between the Charter breach and the breath samples and by misapplying the Grant framework.

The court held that a causal connection was not required and that a sufficient temporal and contextual nexus existed between the breach and the obtaining of the breath samples.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded the exclusion of the evidence was justified and dismissed the Crown’s appeal.