Impaired driving

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, blood alcohol over legal limit causing accident resulting in death, and blood alcohol over legal limit causing accident resulting in bodily harm.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to consider relevant evidence.

The primary defence theory was that the Crown failed to prove the appellant was driving the van, suggesting the appellant and a passenger could have switched positions.

The appellate court found no misapprehension of evidence and no failure to consider relevant evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while blood alcohol content exceeded 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case depended entirely on the results of an Approved Screening Device test and subsequent breath samples.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to rely on the ASD results because he could not establish the device had been calibrated within the required timeframe, resulting in an unlawful arrest and arbitrary detention.

The court also found a breach of the right to counsel, as the officer failed to inform the accused of his right to search for counsel of choice, controlled all means of contacting counsel, and withheld information that the accused's father had called with a lawyer's name.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with "over 80" and impaired driving following a RIDE spot check.

The defence brought a Charter motion arguing that police breached the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The accused, a Vietnamese immigrant with limited English proficiency, was not provided with an interpreter despite "special circumstances" indicating he could not meaningfully understand his rights to counsel.

The court found the police breached the accused's Charter rights by failing to obtain interpreter services through the CanTalk system.

The breath sample evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court also found the accused not guilty of impaired driving on the merits, as the evidence of impairment was insufficient.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on December 31, 2015.

The defendant challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him for impaired driving and sought to exclude the breath test results.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including slow driving, driving without lights, a wide turn, failure to move to the side of the road when emergency lights were activated, and the smell of alcohol.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired by alcohol.

The defendant was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol (160 mgs per 100 milliliters of blood).

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing 130 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged whether the breath tests were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The arresting officer transported the accused to a detachment in Port Credit rather than attempting to arrange testing at closer Halton Police Service stations.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tests were taken as soon as practicable and therefore could not rely on the presumption of identity.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown's case relied on observations by the arresting officer of suspicious driving and parking, physical indicators of impairment, and breath test results.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the approved screening device demand and the timing of breath samples.

The court found the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the demand based on the totality of circumstances, the samples were taken as soon as practicable, and the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a single-vehicle motor vehicle collision on an icy road.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, and the adequacy of the right to counsel consultation under section 10(b).

The court rejected all Charter applications, finding that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the odour of alcohol, the accused's admission to drinking, the circumstances of the accident, and his apology for committing a DUI.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable and incredible.

On the trial on the merits, the court convicted the accused on both counts based on expert toxicological evidence establishing a blood alcohol concentration over 80 at the time of driving, corroborated by observations of impairment and the accused's own admissions.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Operation Over 80 following a motor vehicle collision at Highway 401 and Kennedy Road in Scarborough.

The Crown alleged the accused struck and seriously injured a civilian while his blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit.

The accused raised multiple Charter issues including claims regarding statutorily compelled statements, detention and timely access to counsel, language comprehension difficulties, and lost evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts after addressing the Charter applications and determining that the breath test evidence was admissible.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drug following a traffic stop where police observed signs of impairment.

The defendant brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of her arrest, the DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) evaluation, the search of her person, and the admissibility of statements made during the investigation.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding no breaches of the defendant's rights under sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, no requirement to re-advise of counsel rights before the DRE process, no strip search violation, and that the DRE testing was conducted as soon as reasonably practicable.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample to an approved screening device (ASD) contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

After three unsuccessful attempts to provide a suitable sample over three minutes, the defendant refused to make further attempts, stating the machine was not working properly.

The Crown argued the defendant intentionally failed to provide samples and then refused.

The defendant testified he attempted to comply but the officer kept pulling the device away after a few seconds.

The court found the defendant credible regarding his intent and held that the Crown must prove the defendant intentionally failed to provide a sample, not merely that he failed.

However, the court found the defendant had no reasonable excuse for his outright refusal after only three attempts over three minutes, and convicted him as charged.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess blood alcohol following a single-vehicle accident on a dark, curving highway.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the accident itself, odour of alcohol, physical signs of impairment, and admissions by the accused.

The accused claimed the accident was caused by distraction from a text message.

The court found the accused guilty of both offences.

The accused sought Charter remedies for alleged mistreatment during detention, including failure to respond to complaints about handcuffs, loss of property, unnecessary delay in release, and photographing of tattoos.

The court found breaches of the right against arbitrary detention but denied both the stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence remedies.

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

The Crown presented evidence from a civilian witness, a police constable, and a breath technician showing signs of impairment and breath readings of 190 and 180 milligrams.

The accused testified that he had consumed only two beers before driving and consumed a 13-ounce bottle of vodka after arriving at the Home Depot parking lot.

The court found credible evidence supporting the post-driving consumption of alcohol and, considering all evidence together, harboured a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired at the time of driving.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol (over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood).

The Crown relied on expert toxicology evidence to establish the accused's blood alcohol level at the time of driving, as the breath tests were taken more than two hours after the alleged offence and the statutory presumption of identity could not be applied.

The defence raised evidence of bolus drinking—specifically, that the accused consumed 1 to 2 ounces of Sambuca liqueur (38% alcohol) immediately before driving.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no large quantities of alcohol were consumed within 15 minutes of driving, creating a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit at the time of operation.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

On June 5, 2012, police observed the defendant's vehicle exhibiting inaccurate driving.

After stopping the vehicle, officers detected alcohol on the defendant's breath and administered an approved screening device (ASD) test at roadside, which resulted in a Fail.

The defendant was arrested and transported to the detachment where breath samples were provided to a qualified technician using an Intoxilyzer 8000C, resulting in a reading of 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the validity of the roadside ASD procedure, arguing there was doubt as to whether an approved device was used and that the meaning of the Fail result was ambiguous.

The court rejected these arguments and found the Crown had proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and excess alcohol following a collision on Highway 401 on October 6, 2011.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable trial delay.

The application was heard on January 25, 2013, in advance of the trial date of April 22, 2013.

The court found that the total delay attributable to the Crown and institutional factors was approximately 13.5 months, which exceeded the Askov/Morin guidelines of 8-10 months by 3.5 months.

Despite modest prejudice to the defendant, the court determined that the defendant's interests and society's interest in a prompt trial outweighed society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The application was allowed and the charges were stayed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving following a motor vehicle stop in Caledon, Ontario on October 28, 2010.

The Crown withdrew the companion charge of driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 milligrams) due to a breach of the defendant's right to consult with counsel in private, as his voice was inadvertently recorded on the breath room video while he spoke to his lawyer in the privacy booth.

The defendant raised three Charter applications alleging violations of sections 7, 9, and 10(b).

The court dismissed all Charter applications and found the defendant guilty of impaired driving based on extensive evidence of impairment, including breath test results of 283 and 267 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was sentenced to a $1,700 fine plus victim fine surcharge and a one-year driving prohibition.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol after police observed him exit a vehicle that had just pulled over.

The Crown's case rested on the officer's testimony that the defendant was the driver.

The defence argued that the defendant's ex-girlfriend, Sandra Driscoll, was the actual driver and had pulled over due to an argument about the defendant's intoxication.

The defendant's evidence was rejected as unreliable due to his extreme intoxication and internal inconsistencies.

However, the ex-girlfriend's testimony, while raising questions about her conduct, was not rejected and created a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's identity as the driver.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the defendant was stopped for speeding and subsequently failed an approved screening device test and provided breath samples over the legal limit.

The defendant raised Charter arguments regarding his right to counsel and advanced a bolus drinking defence.

The court found no Charter breach, rejected the bolus drinking defence based on the defendant's lack of credibility, and convicted the defendant of the over 80 charge.

The defendant also pleaded guilty to two Provincial Offences Act charges (speeding and driver having alcohol readily available), with sentencing suspended on those counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop for allegedly running a red light.

The court found insufficient evidence of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's driving was normal apart from the disputed intersection turn, he exhibited no signs of impairment such as unsteadiness, and the only indicators were odour of alcohol and red eyes.

The court determined there were no objectively reasonable grounds for arrest for impaired driving, rendering the breath demand unlawful.

Consequently, the refusal to provide a breath sample was not an offence.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Blow Over 80 after being found in the driver's seat of his vehicle in a ditch with the engine running.

The Crown alleged the accused had more than the legal limit of alcohol in his blood system.

The defence challenged the arrest on Charter grounds, argued the vehicle was immovable and therefore the accused could not have care or control, and contended the breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable.

The trial judge found reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest existed, the presumption of care or control was not rebutted, but the breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable due to an unexplained 31-minute gap between the first and second tests.

The Blow Over 80 charge was dismissed due to the loss of the statutory presumption.

The Operation Impaired charge was also dismissed despite moderate indicia of impairment, as the Crown did not seek a conviction on this charge.