Impaired driving

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 challenged the admissibility of breath test results under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the approved screening device demand and reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.

The accused also challenged whether the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The court found the police had reasonable suspicion and reasonable and probable grounds, dismissed the Charter application, and found the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit (Over 80) contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter voir dire alleging multiple breaches of the accused's rights under sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of the breath test evidence.

The court found that while there was a minor breach of s.10(b) regarding the timing of right to counsel advice, this breach had no impact on the Charter protected rights of the accused and did not warrant exclusion of evidence under s.24(2).

The remaining alleged Charter breaches were not proven on the balance of probabilities.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge's decision that allowed the respondent's appeal from conviction for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent was found passed out in the driver's seat of a running vehicle with the engine on and seatbelt fastened.

He had consumed significant alcohol and provided breath samples showing readings of 210 and 200 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial judge rejected the respondent's evidence that he had no intention to drive.

The Court of Appeal found that the Summary Conviction Appeal Judge erred in characterizing the trial judge's findings as palpable and overriding errors and restored the original convictions.

The accused was charged with two counts under s. 253(1) of the Criminal Code: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was found asleep in the driver's seat of a running vehicle parked on a residential street.

The trial judge found that the accused had rebutted the presumption of care and control by establishing she had no intention to drive.

However, the court found that a realistic risk of danger existed under the second prong of the Boudreault test—that an impaired person behind the wheel may unintentionally set the vehicle in motion.

The court convicted on the impaired count and stayed the over-80 count pursuant to Kienapple.

The defendant was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The defence brought a motion under sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking to exclude breath sample results.

The central issue was whether the defendant's roadside statements identifying himself as the driver were statutorily compelled statements under section 199 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that the statements were compelled and that their use to establish reasonable suspicion for an ASD demand and reasonable and probable grounds for breath samples violated section 7 of the Charter.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a single-vehicle collision on November 21, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on breath analysis results and expert toxicology evidence.

The defence raised Charter challenges regarding the admissibility of pre-arrest statements, the validity of the breath demand, and the right to counsel.

The court found no Charter breaches and admitted all evidence.

The accused was convicted on both counts based on breath readings showing a blood alcohol concentration of 88 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and expert evidence establishing impairment.

The accused was charged with failing to provide an approved screening device (ASD) sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

After being stopped for a traffic investigation, the accused was asked to provide a breath sample into an ASD but failed to do so despite 26 attempts.

The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence of his refusal on the grounds that his Charter rights to counsel (section 10(b)) and protection against arbitrary detention (section 9) were violated.

The court found that the accused was not handcuffed prior to arrest and that evidence of his refusal to provide a sample, as opposed to evidence obtained from compelled participation, was admissible.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

A retired police officer discovered a vehicle in a ditch and spoke with two women at the scene.

The Crown's case rested primarily on eyewitness identification by the witness, circumstantial evidence, and alleged admissions by the accused.

The defence conceded the accused had been drinking but contested whether she was the driver.

The court found the eyewitness identification unreliable due to poor observation conditions, lack of corroborating details, and material discrepancies between the witness's description and the accused's appearance.

The charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt as to identity.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and over 80 following a motor vehicle collision.

The trial involved a blended hearing on Charter issues and the merits.

The court found that while the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, the police breached the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights by failing to provide meaningful translation of his rights and the reason for arrest despite knowing he had severe language barriers and did not speak English.

A Cantonese-speaking officer was called but failed to properly communicate with the accused.

The blood samples obtained were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the serious nature of the breach.

Without the blood evidence, the Crown could not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the remaining evidence, and both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and dangerous driving.

The Crown did not proceed with an impaired driving charge.

The accused admitted to driving with a blood alcohol level of 130 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood but raised the defence of necessity, claiming he was forced to drive to escape an imminent threat of physical harm in a parking lot confrontation.

The court found the defence of necessity did not apply and convicted the accused of the over 80 charge while acquitting on the dangerous driving charge.

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

The accused sought to exclude breath test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the police officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to demand an approved instrument test.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances, including the vehicle's location on the highway shoulder at 3:13 a.m., the accused urinating behind the vehicle, the odour of alcohol, red and watery eyes, and the accused's admission of consuming two beers.

The court also found that the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable within 65 minutes of the stop.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

Police officers observed a vehicle on Highway 105 near a R.I.D.E. checkpoint and followed it to a parking lot where they found the accused sleeping in a vehicle.

The officers detained the accused and administered an approved screening device and breathalyzer tests without proper Charter compliance.

The court found breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and excluded the evidence under section 24(2), resulting in an acquittal.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Refuse Breath Sample following an incident in September 2014.

He brought a motion under s. 11(b) of the Charter to stay the charges due to unreasonable delay.

The Information was not sworn until February 2015, approximately five months after arrest.

Full disclosure was not provided until August 2015, approximately ten months after the accused's first court appearance.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets an 18-month ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court found that while there was significant Crown and institutional delay, particularly in the disclosure process, the total delay of approximately 8.5 months fell within acceptable parameters and did not markedly exceed the reasonable time requirements for a routine impaired driving case.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown relied on breath test readings of 136 and 131 milligrams and expert evidence extrapolating the accused's blood alcohol content at the time of driving.

The court found that while the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds, the Crown failed to prove the absence of bolus drinking, rendering the expert opinion unreliable.

Additionally, the evidence of impairment was inconsistent and frail, with minimal evidence of bad driving.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The applicant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol on September 21, 2014.

His trial was scheduled for December 2, 2015, approximately 14.5 months later.

He brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The court found that while the delay exceeded the Morin guidelines for the jurisdiction, it did not exceed them by much.

The applicant's claimed prejudice was limited and largely not credible, as he testified that adverse effects only began after the Crown's adjournment application on August 31, 2015.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood contrary to s. 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded as a blended hearing addressing both Charter applications and the trial on the merits.

The defence raised four Charter issues: (1) whether the approved screening device (ASD) was administered forthwith and whether the right to counsel was violated; (2) whether there was a violation of s. 8 of the Charter based on an allegedly unreliable ASD; (3) whether the arrest constituted arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter; and (4) whether the breath demand under s. 254(3) was made as soon as practicable.

The court found that all Charter applications lacked merit and convicted the accused based on breath samples showing 124 mg and 122 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defendant was convicted of Operation Over 80 following a collision with a motorcyclist at Highway 401 and Kennedy Road in Scarborough.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including brain damage, vision impairment, and ongoing physical and psychological trauma.

The court found the defendant's impaired driving contributed to the collision despite the Crown proceeding on a lesser charge that excluded causation.

The defendant was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment served intermittently on weekends, with 12 months probation and no enhanced driving prohibition.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results obtained through an approved screening device at the roadside and an approved instrument at the police division.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the evidence on Charter grounds, arguing the officer lacked reasonable grounds to demand the roadside breath test and that the samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds for the initial demand but determined the Crown failed to establish that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable due to an unjustified twenty-minute delay at the roadside.

Without the statutory presumption of identity, the Crown could not prove the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving, and the charge was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The incident occurred when the defendant, having consumed 10-12 drinks, drove at excessive speed through a residential area and collided with trees and a light post, injuring his passenger.

The defendant fled the scene and fabricated a false story to police.

The Crown sought 8-12 months incarceration; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, considering the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and significant cognitive impairments resulting from a prior brain injury, while balancing denunciation and deterrence objectives.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a RIDE check investigation.

The defence brought a s. 24(2) Charter application to exclude breath test results, arguing that the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) rights to counsel by imposing an unreasonable 15-minute time limit for private counsel to return a call before proceeding with breathalyzer testing.

The court found that the officer failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel of choice and excluded the evidence, resulting in dismissal of the charge.