Justice J. Bliss

The accused pled guilty to manslaughter after providing a substance he believed to be cocaine to the victim, who died from ingesting U-47700, a synthetic opioid.

The accused, along with another individual, also ingested the substance and survived.

The accused failed to call emergency services when the victim was found unresponsive, instead calling for a ride.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years' probation, with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence against the accused's genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and the fact that he believed he was supplying cocaine rather than a deadly synthetic opioid.

The Crown charged three defendants with various offences arising from a police stop of a vehicle in downtown Barrie.

The defendants challenged the lawfulness of the police conduct, alleging violations of their Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The Crown conceded that Charter violations occurred.

The court found that the passengers (Hamidu and Farah) were arbitrarily detained without being advised of their right to counsel, and that evidence obtained from this unlawful detention should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The driver (Husen) was subject to a brief detention in furtherance of a valid Highway Traffic Act investigation, and the firearm evidence was admitted against him.

The charges against Hamidu and Farah were dismissed; Husen faced trial on firearm-related charges.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample after police responded to a noise complaint at her residence.

The accused was found sitting in the driver's seat of a van in her driveway with the keys in the ignition and beer cans in the centre console.

The trial judge found that while the accused was in the driver's seat and had consumed alcohol, the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she was impaired or that there was a realistic risk of danger.

The judge also found that the breath demand was not made in unequivocal terms and therefore did not constitute a valid demand.

The accused was acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a single motor vehicle accident.

The accused challenged the grounds for her arrest under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on her observable signs of impairment at the roadside, including unsteadiness, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and incoherent responses.

The court also found that a formal breath demand was made at the detachment, and the accused's refusal to comply constituted the offence of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The accused was convicted on both charges.