Jelena Vlacic

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation involving a young person with whom he lived.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant and the accused, noting significant inconsistencies in the complainant's statements to police and during testimony, as well as a potential motive to fabricate.

While DNA evidence of the accused's semen was found on the complainant's underwear, expert testimony could not rule out transference from other clothing in a communal laundry basket.

The court found the accused's testimony to be tailored to minimize his authority and contact with the complainant, but ultimately concluded that the evidence, when considered holistically, left a reasonable doubt on both charges.

The accused was found not guilty.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for refusing to comply with an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding reasonable suspicion, finding an intentional refusal, and improperly using his roadside silence to reject his trial testimony regarding medical excuses.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found no error in the reasonable suspicion or intentional refusal findings.

However, the court held the trial judge committed a reversible error by using the appellant's pre-arrest roadside silence to reject his trial evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and with refusing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown called three witnesses: a civilian tow truck driver who observed the erratic driving and followed the vehicle; the arresting officer; and the breath technician.

The defence called the accused.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle observed by the tow truck driver and that his ability to operate the motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The court also found that the Crown proved the mens rea and actus reus of the refusal charge.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving, flight from police, and driving with excess alcohol (Over 80).

The trial involved both Charter and merits challenges.

The defendant alleged breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter regarding the breath demand and right to counsel.

On the merits, the defendant argued the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable and that the dangerous driving and flight from police charges were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the defendant guilty of Over 80 but acquitted him of dangerous driving and flight from police due to insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death, assault with a weapon (hammer), and simple assault against his spouse.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of the complainant, while the defence called the accused and a police officer.

The trial involved a credibility assessment of conflicting accounts regarding three alleged incidents: a threat to kill and bury the complainant, an attack with a hammer at a trailer, and a kitchen assault.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding a statement made on the eve of trial that appeared to conflate separate incidents.

Despite finding the complainant largely credible, the court determined that reasonable doubt existed on all charges due to unexplained inconsistencies, the erratic nature of the complainant's testimony, and ambiguities in the medical evidence.

The accused brought a Mills application seeking production of third-party records held by medical providers, telecommunications companies, police services, and probation officers.

The application involved a sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm charge arising from an intimate relationship that had ended.

The court conducted a two-stage analysis under sections 278.3 to 278.9 of the Criminal Code, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests.

The court granted production of certain hospital records, telephone records, police records relating to prior investigations, and police occurrence reports involving dishonesty allegations, while denying production of the complainant's telephone records, family physician records, and probation records.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions arising out of an impaired care and control investigation where the appellant was found asleep in the driver's seat of a vehicle stopped in a live lane with the engine on and gear in drive.

The appellant argued the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable, the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand, and the evidence did not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal court held that the police acted reasonably in waiting in the sally-port and in contacting duty counsel given the appellant's state of intoxication, and that the officer had sufficient grounds based on the totality of observations.

The court further held that the trial judge's conclusion on impaired care and control was open on the evidence and the appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging that the actions of PC Cooper were excessive and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The incident occurred in the cell area of a police station when the officer was removing the defendant's handcuffs.

The defendant tensed and pulled his arm, which the officer interpreted as a precursor to aggressive movement.

The officer then took the defendant to the ground using a choke hold.

The court found that the defendant's section 7 Charter rights were infringed, as the officer's use of force was excessive in the circumstances.

Evidence obtained as a result was excluded.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol in his blood (Over 80) following a traffic stop in the early morning hours.

The Crown's case rested on an approved screening device (ASD) test that registered a "fail." The defence raised a Charter challenge arguing that residual mouth alcohol could have affected the reliability of the ASD result, claiming the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

The court found that the officer reasonably relied on the ASD result and that the accused's statement regarding the timing of his last drink (two hours prior) did not constitute credible evidence of recent alcohol consumption that would have required the officer to delay the test.

The conviction was entered.

The accused was charged with driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, drive disqualified, possession of a prohibited weapon, and breach of a weapons prohibition.

At trial, the Crown sought to rely on the presumption of identity regarding breath test readings to establish the accused's blood alcohol level at the time of driving.

The defence challenged whether the breath tests were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by the Criminal Code.

The trial judge found that the police failed to meet this statutory requirement due to unnecessary delays, including an unaccounted period after the demand, a vehicle search, a leisurely personal search, and note-taking at the scene.

The Crown could not rely on the presumption of identity without evidence of compliance with the "as soon as practicable" requirement.

The charge was dismissed.