Donald F. McLeod

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample to a peace officer.

The Crown alleged the officer had reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device (ASD) test, made the demand forthwith, and the accused refused to comply.

The defence argued the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, the demand was not made forthwith, and the accused was unable to use the machine properly due to inadequate instruction and anxiety.

The court found the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the accused coming from a licensed establishment, odour of alcohol, and red watery eyes.

The court found the forthwith requirement was met.

Most significantly, the court found the accused eventually refused to blow into the device, which constituted the offence.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and having care or control of a motor vehicle on December 31, 2013.

The vehicle had mounted a snowbank after the accused swerved to avoid a collision.

When police arrived, the accused was found in the driver's seat with keys in the ignition.

The court examined whether the accused had care or control of the vehicle despite it being immobilized on the snowbank, and whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable as required by law.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained from his home computer, arguing police unlawfully searched and copied files containing child pornography without first obtaining a warrant.

Officers attended the residence after the accused’s spouse reported discovering child pornography on a computer that was currently running and potentially encrypted.

Concerned that the presence of encryption software and the possibility of remote access could result in loss of evidence, police copied the files and seized the computer before obtaining a warrant several months later to conduct a full search.

The court held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure and copying of the files, as there was a risk of imminent loss or destruction of digital evidence.

The police actions were also found to fall within their lawful duties under the common law and s. 487.11 of the Criminal Code.

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.