2 total
The accused was acquitted of driving offences because the Crown failed to disprove necessity.
The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle, operation with excessive blood-alcohol concentration, and dangerous driving arising from an incident where he grabbed the steering wheel of a vehicle being driven by his former partner, causing it to crash into a ditch.
The Crown's case was not disputed on the facts of impairment and dangerous operation.
The sole issue was whether the defence of necessity applied.
The accused claimed he grabbed the wheel to prevent the driver from deliberately causing an accident after she threatened to harm them both.
The court found an air of reality to the necessity defence and, applying the three-part test from R. v. Perka and R. v. Latimer, determined that the Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not act out of necessity.
The accused was acquitted on all counts.
A two-hour delay in providing a French-speaking accused access to French duty counsel violates section 10(b) of the Charter.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
Following a roadside screening device failure, the accused was arrested and requested access to French-speaking duty counsel.
A two-hour delay occurred before a French-speaking duty counsel became available.
The court found this delay constituted a breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.
Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the breath sample evidence as admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The charge was dismissed.
