Joseph W. Bovard

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The sole issue was whether the arresting officer had the required reasonable suspicion to demand a breath sample into an approved screening device.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 8 rights.

The court found that despite credibility issues with the officer's testimony regarding the odour of alcohol on the accused's breath, the totality of circumstances—including the time of day, vehicle lighting issues, physical observations, and the presence of intoxicated passengers—provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the demand.

The court rejected the Charter application and found the accused guilty as charged.

This is a ruling on committal to stand trial following a preliminary hearing.

Three accused were jointly charged with seven counts involving a Glock 10mm semiautomatic pistol, including careless use of a firearm, possession of restricted firearms without licence, occupying a motor vehicle with a restricted firearm, discharging a firearm recklessly, and possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The Crown alleged that during an early morning drive, one of the accused discharged the firearm in a residential neighbourhood.

The court discharged all accused on count 7 (possession of weapon for dangerous purpose).

All accused consented to committal on count 5 (occupying motor vehicle with restricted firearm).

Walter Long was discharged on all other counts.

Van Hoang Le was committed on counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 based on the court's finding that as the designated driver, he had constructive possession of the firearm.

Vishnuvarthan Srivaratharajah was committed on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, with the court finding sufficient circumstantial evidence that he was the person who discharged the firearm.

A 14-day trial concerning custody, access, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses for a child born to unmarried parties who participated in two Islamic marriage ceremonies but were never legally married under Canadian law.

The applicant sought sole custody based on fears that the respondent would abscond with the child to Morocco.

The respondent sought sole custody and claimed child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent, finding the applicant's fears of abduction were unfounded and that the applicant was controlling and dismissive of the respondent's role as mother.

The court also found the parties were spouses under section 29(b) of the Family Law Act based on their relationship of some permanence and their shared child, and awarded spousal support accordingly.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and "Over 80" following a motor vehicle collision on the QEW.

The defence challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant for impaired driving and make a demand for breath samples, arguing this constituted a breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the officer had sufficient grounds based on witness testimony regarding erratic driving, the defendant's admission that he had consumed alcohol, the odour of alcohol on his breath, and the defendant's statement that he would fail the breath test.

The court dismissed the Charter application and found the defendant guilty of the "Over 80" charge, entering a conditional stay on the impaired driving charge.

The accused was charged with simple possession of crack cocaine.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the police detention, search of the vehicle, and strip search, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the police detained the accused based on mere suspicion and hunches rather than reasonable grounds, conducted an unlawful search of the vehicle, and performed an unjustified strip search.

The court excluded the evidence of the crack cocaine under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with "Over 80" (operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood).

The trial addressed two Charter issues: whether the police breached the accused's rights under section 10(b) by failing to provide an interpreter or Polish-speaking officer, and whether the police breached section 8 rights by making an illegal demand for a breath sample into an approved screening device.

The court found no breach of section 10(b) rights, as the accused demonstrated sufficient understanding of English and his rights to counsel.

However, the court found a serious breach of section 8 rights because the officer failed to provide direct evidence of forming a reasonable suspicion that the accused had alcohol in his body while driving, as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 844 grams of heroin into Canada.

She swallowed 63 pellets of heroin at Toronto Pearson International Airport upon arrival from Aruba.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7 years minus pre-trial detention credit of approximately 2 years and 2 months, resulting in 4 years and 10 months additional incarceration.

The defence argued for a lower sentence of 4 years minus pre-trial detention based on extraordinary circumstances, including the defendant's traumatic background, vulnerability, lack of personal gain, and the life-threatening method of importation.

The court imposed the Crown's requested sentence of 7 years total, with credit for pre-trial detention, resulting in 4 years and 10 months additional incarceration, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to depart from established sentencing ranges for heroin importation.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The sole issue at trial was whether the police administered the breath tests as soon as practicable following the arrest, as required by the Criminal Code.

The Crown established that the accused failed a roadside screening device test and was arrested.

The accused was transported to the police station where he exercised his right to counsel before breath samples were taken on an Intoxilyzer device.

The defence challenged whether the approximately 23-minute period between the accused entering the breath room and the completion of the first breath test was adequately explained.

The court found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the breath tests were administered as soon as practicable and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with assaulting the complainant on June 15, 2015.

The Crown alleged that the accused pushed the complainant with both hands, causing her to fall, and then kicked her in the chest with significant force.

The accused denied the assault, claiming the complainant was attacking him and that he was attempting to leave the house to catch a bus for basketball training.

The trial judge found that the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and acquitted him of the charge.

The defendant brought a motion to strike her guilty plea to importing heroin after statements in a pre-sentence report suggested she had been forced to commit the offence and sexually assaulted by those forcing her.

The defendant also alleged the police induced her confession by promising to send her back to Aruba if she admitted guilt.

The court found the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and fully informed, and that the defendant understood the possible defences available to her and the consequences of her plea.

The motion was dismissed and the plea was upheld.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

Police observed the accused in the driver's seat of a truck in a motel parking lot known for drug activity.

Following an initial investigative detention for suspected drug offence, officers discovered the accused had consumed alcohol and administered an approved screening device test, which the accused failed.

The accused was arrested and subsequently provided breath samples at the police station showing readings of 160 and 170 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the detention, the administration of the breath tests, and argued the accused had rebutted the presumption of care or control.

The court found the detention lawful, the breath tests administered as soon as practicable, and the presumption of care or control was not rebutted.

The accused was convicted.

The accused brought an application for bail pursuant to s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code while on trial for 14 charges related to domestic violence.

The accused had been in custody since June 19, 2015.

The defence argued that material changes in circumstances—including weaknesses in the Crown's case revealed during the complainant's testimony and the passage of time—justified release.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the complainant's evidence remained credible and that the accused was not in a time-served situation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the passage of time constituted a material change in circumstances, the secondary ground for detention remained satisfied due to the accused's substantial history of breaching court orders and attempting to interfere with the administration of justice.

The accused was charged with "Over 80" (impaired driving with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood) following a roadside stop.

During a pat-down search incident to arrest, a female officer unzipped the accused's sweater without warning, exposing her breasts in a see-through bra while two male officers watched from nearby.

The court found this constituted an unreasonable strip search in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The Crown failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds justifying the strip search, and the search was conducted in the field without demonstrated necessity or urgency.

The evidence of the breath tests was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the charge was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel sought Crown wardship of two children (Am, age 10, and Az, age 2) following the death of their older sibling M from malnutrition while in the respondents' care.

The respondents were convicted of manslaughter in M's death.

The Society apprehended Am in 2011 after discovering vitamin D and B12 deficiencies, and Az at birth in 2013.

The respondents maintained they had done nothing wrong and resisted the Society's efforts to address nutritional concerns, citing religious beliefs and conspiracy theories.

The court found both children in need of protection due to risk of physical harm from parental neglect and lack of adequate nutrition.

The court ordered Crown wardship for both children with no access to the respondents, finding that the respondents had not changed their dietary practices, profoundly mistrusted the Society, and could not cooperate in a meaningful way to ensure the children's safety.

The Crown charged the defendant with breaching a house arrest condition of his recognizance on December 24, 2013.

The defence brought a motion for a directed verdict challenging whether there was sufficient evidence of identity to pass the Shephard test.

Officer Perreault identified the defendant based on a mug shot and surveillance observations, but the Crown failed to establish an admissible evidentiary link between the defendant and the person named in the recognizance and Information.

The court found the Crown's case fatally flawed due to reliance on hearsay evidence regarding the defendant's identity and lack of admissible evidence connecting the defendant to the named person in the legal documents.

The applicant brought a motion to change a child support order made by Justice Maresca on July 16, 2012, which required him to pay $508.00 per month based on an annual income of $35,000.

The applicant sought to vary the order based on a material change in circumstances, claiming his actual income was significantly lower, and requested a reassessment for alleged overpayments in 2013 and 2014.

The court found that the applicant's actual income had consistently been approximately $12,000 to $13,000 annually, not $35,000 as originally stated.

The court granted the motion and varied the child support to $333 per month based on a minimum wage income of $22,000, effective from the date of the original order.

The court declined to order reimbursement for overpayments, finding it would not be in the children's best interests.

This is a costs ruling in a family law matter involving a motion to change and a motion to strike pleadings.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $44,321.62.

The court found that the applicant acted in bad faith through deliberate concealment of financial disclosure, misrepresentation of income, and obstructive litigation conduct spanning over two years.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $34,889.50, payable immediately and enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as child support.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood following a single motor vehicle collision.

The Crown's case relied on the accused's statements in the breath room, breath test results showing 180 and 170 mg, and circumstantial evidence suggesting the accused was the driver.

The defence challenged whether the accused had an operating mind when making statements in the breath room and whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving.

The court found the accused's statements inadmissible due to lack of operating mind caused by severe intoxication, concussion, and confusion.

The court also found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was the driver, based on evidence that the accused was severely intoxicated at the party and testimony that someone else drove him from the party.

The respondent sought to relocate with the parties' child from Ontario to Calgary, Alberta to be with her fiancé who had employment there.

The applicant opposed the relocation.

The court found that while a material change in circumstances existed (the fiancé's inability to find employment in Ontario), the relocation would not be in the child's best interests.

The child had strong, meaningful relationships with both parents, extended family, and friends in Ontario.

The proposed move would significantly curtail contact with the access parent and disrupt the child's established life.

The court dismissed the motion to change.

The accused was charged with assaulting his pregnant partner and threatening to kill her and their unborn child on November 25, 2013.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the credibility of the complainant, who alleged the accused pushed her onto a bed, straddled her, grabbed her arms, and applied pressure to her neck.

The accused denied all allegations and claimed the bruising on the complainant's arms resulted from consensual rough sexual activity.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence lacked credibility due to multiple inconsistencies, including contradictions regarding whether the accused had been drinking, whether he had previously choked her, and discrepancies between her police statement and trial testimony.

The judge found the accused's evidence consistent and credible, and acquitted him of all charges.