2 total
The accused was acquitted of impaired driving and over 80 charges after successfully raising a last drink defence and the court rejecting blanket scientific impairment evidence.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, arising from a collision on May 18, 2015, in Ottawa.
The Crown relied on breath test results showing 168 mg% and 165 mg% at the time of testing, expert toxicological evidence regarding scientific impairment at 50 mg%, and police observations of alleged signs of impairment.
The defence raised the "last drink" doctrine, arguing the accused consumed alcohol approximately 13 minutes before driving, and challenged the applicability of general scientific impairment evidence to the specific accused.
The court found the accused not guilty on both counts.
Conviction for sexual exploitation quashed and new trial ordered due to trial judge's improper reliance on section 276 evidence.
The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on inadmissible evidence.
At trial, the Crown introduced evidence of the appellant's sexual relationship with the complainant after the complainant turned 18, which the trial judge ruled inadmissible under section 276 of the Criminal Code.
However, the trial judge subsequently relied on this post-majority relationship to reject the appellant's exculpatory police statement.
The Superior Court of Justice found this to be a reversible error, as the appellant was assured the evidence was inadmissible and had no opportunity to address it.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
