John McRobert East

The accused, N.D.H., was charged with multiple sexual offences against a child.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, which was found to be inconsistent and unclear on significant points.

The defence established a motive to fabricate based on the complainant’s upset over having her electronic devices taken away.

The court found the accused’s evidence credible and acquitted him, holding that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Mohammed Shaikh, faced charges of impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

He brought a Charter application alleging violations of his rights under sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude breath samples.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, and the breath demand was valid, not violating section 8.

The court also found no unreasonable delay in facilitating the right to counsel under section 10(b), as police acted reasonably given safety and privacy concerns.

Consequently, the Charter applications were dismissed, the breath samples were admitted, and the accused was found guilty on both counts of impaired operation and over 80.

Neeshard Mohammed was tried for operating a conveyance with over 80 mgs of alcohol.

He challenged the admissibility of breath samples, alleging Charter violations (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) related to the immediacy of the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand and his right to counsel.

The court found a technical s.10(b) Charter violation due to a 5-minute delay in the ASD arrival and the officer's insufficient basis for assuming timely arrival, which meant the Crown could not justify the suspension of the right to counsel during that period.

However, the court found no other Charter violations regarding informational duties or waiver, as the accused clearly understood his rights and repeatedly chose not to exercise them.

Applying the Grant test under s.24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the police conduct was not serious and the impact on the accused's Charter rights was negligible, weighing against exclusion.

Society's interest in adjudication on the merits, given the reliable breath sample evidence, also favored admission.

Consequently, the breath samples were admitted, leading to a finding of guilt for the Over 80 mgs offence.

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.