Jason Mitri Chaaya

The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether the failure of a police officer to specify the exact model number of an approved screening device (ASD) used to test blood alcohol content undermined reasonable grounds for arrest.

The Court relied on precedent from R. v. Gundy to hold that the officer’s testimony that an approved device was used, absent credible contradictory evidence, suffices to establish reasonable grounds.

The Court also addressed whether the arrest was unlawful because it was made for impaired driving rather than excess blood alcohol, concluding the arrest was lawful given the totality of circumstances and the officer’s subjective belief.

Finally, the Court examined alleged breaches of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, finding no breach where the accused was promptly given access to duty counsel despite some problematic comments by the breath technician.

The accused was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Javier Ibarra’s application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from charge to trial was 536 days (17.6 months), below the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court cases.

After deducting 103 days of defence-caused delay, the net delay was 433 days (14.2 months).

The court found that the defence did not make sustained efforts to expedite the trial, notably delaying the setting of trial dates and failing to adapt to the Jordan-Compliant Scheduling Practice Direction implemented in November 2023.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not unreasonable and did not meet the high threshold for a stay under the Charter.