2 total
The court admitted breath sample evidence despite a section 10(a) Charter breach, convicting the accused of driving over the legal limit.
The accused was charged with impaired operation and "over 80" following a traffic stop.
The accused challenged the lawfulness of the approved screening device (ASD) demand and breath sample demand on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).
The court found that while there was a breach of section 10(a) (failure to inform promptly of reasons for detention), the evidence was admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.
The court found the accused guilty of "over 80" and conditionally stayed the impaired driving charge.
Expert threat assessment evidence based on the SARA tool is inadmissible at sentencing due to lack of necessity and reliability.
The accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and breach of probation.
At sentencing, the Crown sought to introduce expert evidence from Detective Sergeant Kelly Grubb regarding a threat assessment report.
The defence objected to admissibility.
The court conducted a voir dire and ultimately dismissed the Crown's application to admit the expert evidence, finding that it failed to meet the necessity requirement under the Mohan test and that the reliability of the threat assessment based on the SARA was insufficient to justify admission.
