K. Anders

The defendant was charged with failure to provide a sample of breath (ASD refusal) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Crown sought conviction on the charge.

The defendant raised Charter applications challenging the validity of the ASD demand and alleging breaches of sections 7, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found the ASD demand was valid based on reasonable suspicion of alcohol consumption.

While finding a technical breach of section 10(b) rights regarding access to counsel, the court determined no Charter relief was warranted under the Grant factors.

The court also rejected arguments of section 7 and 9 breaches, finding the detention and handcuffing, though uncomfortable, did not rise to the level of constitutional violation.

The defendant was found guilty of the ASD refusal charge.

The accused was charged with two counts: (1) failing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code, and (2) breaching a probation order by failing to provide a breath sample when requested by a police officer.

The accused refused to provide a roadside breath sample, stating he wished to consult with counsel first and believed he could provide the sample at the police station.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, holding that the accused cannot rely on a mistaken belief regarding the right to counsel before complying with a roadside breath demand, and that such a stated intention constitutes an unequivocal refusal.

The defendant was charged with care and control of an automobile while impaired and having a blood alcohol limit exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant's vehicle was found stuck in sand on the shoulder of a deserted road near Kleinberg.

The defendant was standing in a field approximately 50-60 feet from the vehicle, stating he was waiting for a ride.

The Crown sought to prove care and control based on circumstantial evidence and the defendant's proximity to the vehicle.

The court found that while the Crown established reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in care and control of the motor vehicle at the time of police arrival.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results obtained at a RIDE (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) checkpoint.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breath evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The central issue was whether the presence of a media cameraman recording the breath testing procedure and the subsequent broadcast of the footage violated the accused's constitutional rights.

The court found that both a section 10(b) breach (right to counsel in private) and a section 8 breach (unreasonable search and seizure) had occurred.

The breath evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit after police found him outside his vehicle in an intoxicated state following a collision with a parked car.

The Crown conceded it could not prove the offence of operating over 80 due to lack of evidence establishing the time of the accident.

The Crown alternatively sought a conviction for the included offence of having care and control of a motor vehicle over 80.

The court dismissed the charge, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual care and control of the vehicle.

The evidence was equally consistent with the defendant remaining at the scene to comply with his statutory duty under the Highway Traffic Act.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused brought Charter applications under sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), alleging that statements made at the accident scene were statutorily compelled and that his rights were violated.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding that the accused did not provide a compelled report, that the officers were acting for public safety purposes, and that the brief delay in reading the ASD demand was justified by safety concerns.

At trial, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the vehicle with a BAC over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood during the relevant time period.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown refused to provide a translated transcript of the breath room video, which was conducted entirely in Russian between the accused and a Russian-speaking breath technician.

The accused's counsel sought an order requiring the Crown to provide a full English translation of the video as part of their disclosure obligation.

The court held that the Crown must provide the translated transcript, finding that disclosure obligations require the Crown to ensure the accused can make full answer and defence and that the Crown itself must be able to properly assess the strength of its case.