Justice Scott Latimer

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding eighty milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

She brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath samples obtained at a police station, alleging a violation of section 10(b) of the Charter regarding her right to counsel.

The accused argued that although she was read her rights from a pre-printed card at the roadside, the information was delivered too quickly while she was emotionally distressed and overwhelmed with other information, and that she was not effectively informed of her right to contact a lawyer of her choice.

The court found that the police adequately informed the accused of her section 10(b) rights and that she failed to take any positive action to invoke or exercise her right to counsel.

The application was dismissed and the accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code following a roadside sobriety check.

The defendant claimed he used the word "prefer" rather than "refuse" and believed he had the right to decline the roadside test based on legal advice received in the United States.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that he unequivocally refused to comply with a lawful demand and that his conduct constituted a refusal regardless of the specific words used.

The court rejected the defendant's credibility and accepted the officer's evidence as reliable and truthful.

The defendant was charged with making and possessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case consisted of an agreed statement of facts containing electronic communications between the defendant and another individual discussing incest roleplay, ageplay, and sexual activity with children.

The defendant pleaded not guilty.

The sole issue at trial was whether the written communications met the statutory definition of child pornography under section 163.1(1)(b), which requires material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under eighteen years of age that would constitute an offence.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that his written words, when viewed objectively, actively induced and encouraged unlawful sexual activity with children.