Joshua Aaron Fagan

The accused was charged with driving while impaired by a drug following a traffic stop on Highway 118.

The Crown alleged the accused's ability to drive was impaired by a central nervous system depressant based on poor driving observations, a failed roadside sobriety test, and a Drug Recognition Expert evaluation.

The accused's urine tested positive for Olanzapine, an anti-psychotic medication.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: the accused was not promptly informed of his right to counsel following arrest, the Drug Recognition Expert evaluation demand was not made as soon as practicable, and the accused was arbitrarily detained after the investigation was completed.

The court excluded the evidence of the Drug Recognition Expert evaluation and urine analysis under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted.

Samuel Robinson, found guilty of drug possession and possession for trafficking, challenged the constitutionality of the two-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 5(3)(a)(ii)(A) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing it infringed sections 12 and 7 of the Charter.

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate both on the facts of the case and in a reasonable hypothetical situation, thereby infringing section 12 of the Charter.

The question of justification under section 1 of the Charter was reserved for further consideration.