Justice S. Caponecchia

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 mg per 100 mL of blood).

Officers conducted a RIDE spot check and the defendant failed a roadside screening test.

Two breath samples were provided at the station, registering 160 mg and 150 mg respectively.

The defence raised two Charter-based arguments and two substantive challenges: (1) that the presumption of identity in s. 258 of the Criminal Code does not survive its repeal (the Shaikh issue), and (2) that the Crown failed to establish the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer tests (the Flores-Vigil issue).

The court rejected both defence arguments, finding that the presumption of identity applies to pre-amendment offences and that the Crown established the preconditions for the presumption of accuracy through viva voce evidence.

The defendant was found guilty.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a key witness to testify remotely from an undisclosed location during a preliminary inquiry into a first-degree murder charge.

The witness, who was the girlfriend of one of the accused and had direct knowledge of the defendants' conduct at the scene, had received an anonymous threatening message and reported being followed.

The defence opposed the application, arguing that the right to confront witnesses would be compromised and that alternative protective measures were available.

The court granted the application, finding that the witness's fears were genuine and reasonable, and that the legislative amendments to section 486.2 of the Criminal Code lowered the threshold for such orders from "necessary" to "facilitate."

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault arising from an attack on a vulnerable victim with Asperger Syndrome at a shopping mall.

The Crown applied for a publication ban on the victim's identity pursuant to section 486.5 of the Criminal Code.

The court granted the publication ban, finding that it was in the interest of the proper administration of justice to protect the victim's identity and privacy, balancing the victim's vulnerability and the risk of harm against the principles of open court and freedom of the press.