Impaired driving

The accused was charged with driving while impaired by drug following observations of erratic driving, two motor vehicle accidents, and physical indicia of impairment.

The trial judge found Charter breaches regarding the suspension of the right to counsel at the roadside and the failure to obtain an informed and unequivocal waiver of counsel at the police station.

Evidence obtained following these breaches was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, the trial judge found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible evidence including civilian witness testimony of erratic driving, police observations of physical impairment indicators, and expert evidence regarding the effects of drugs on driving ability.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and over 80 care or control following a 911 call reporting an erratically driven black BMW on Highway 401.

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

The court found no detention occurred during the initial police encounter, no Charter breaches, and that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unreliable and incredible, finding he was the driver of the vehicle based on witness observations, admissions, and circumstantial evidence.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was found sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle at 3:11 a.m.

The Crown relied on the statutory presumption of care or control under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant testified that he had driven to a bar with the plan to take an Uber home if he drank, that he had lost his car key while attempting to retrieve his personal belongings from the vehicle, and that he had no intention to drive.

The court found that the defendant had rebutted the presumption and that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a realistic risk of danger.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and care or control while blood-alcohol content exceeded 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused was found sleeping in the driver's seat of his vehicle after it had drifted onto a curb and struck a hydro box.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing BAC of 100 and 90.

The court acquitted on both counts, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that impairment was caused by alcohol rather than exhaustion, and that the breath test evidence was inadmissible due to a serious Charter violation of the accused's right to counsel of choice.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of 80 mgs/100ml following a collision where she drove into a stopped vehicle at full speed.

The Crown proved reasonable grounds for arrest based on the dangerous driving, physical observations, and odour of alcohol.

The court found breaches of the accused's Charter rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) due to delayed notification of the change in investigation purpose and failure to advise of right to counsel.

However, the breaches were found to be minor with no real impact on the accused's interests, and the breath test evidence was admitted under section 24(2).

The court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on both the breath test readings and the pattern of dangerous driving, mental confusion, and impaired faculties demonstrated before and after the collision.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following a roadside stop and arrest.

The accused applied to exclude breath sample evidence on the grounds that the arresting officer failed to advise her of her right to counsel immediately upon arrest, in violation of s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the Charter breach.

The court found the breach serious due to systemic failures by the Peel Regional Police to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Suberu, which established that "without delay" means "immediately." Despite the reliability of the evidence and the accused's decision not to contact counsel, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter to maintain the repute of the administration of justice.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mgs per 100 mls of blood.

The Crown relied on breath sample evidence obtained following a traffic stop at a gas station.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the detention and the grounds for the breath demand under the Charter.

The court found no arbitrary detention but did find a violation of section 8 of the Charter regarding reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.

However, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) as the breach was minor and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured inclusion.

The court found the Certificate of Qualified Breath Technician admissible and the presumptions under section 258 of the Criminal Code were not displaced.

The accused was convicted of the over 80 offence but acquitted of impaired care or control, as the Crown failed to prove impairment of driving ability beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He brought a Charter application challenging the validity of the approved screening device (ASD) test and the subsequent breathalyzer readings, arguing violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure), s. 7 (life, liberty, and security), s. 9 (arbitrary detention), and s. 10(a) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that the officer properly investigated whether the accused had consumed non-alcoholic substances prior to the ASD test and was entitled to rely on the "Fail" result to form reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.

The accused was found guilty and sentenced to a $1,000 fine and a one-year driving prohibition.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and refusal to provide a breath sample following a motor vehicle collision in Markham.

The Crown's case established that the defendant's vehicle drove directly off the road and crashed into a retail building with significant force.

The defendant testified that he had consumed three beers at a restaurant and had no memory of the accident.

The trial judge rejected the defendant's evidence regarding alcohol consumption and his claim of retrograde amnesia.

The court found the defendant guilty on all three counts based on the circumstances of the accident, observations of impairment by officers, and the defendant's unequivocal refusal to provide a breath sample.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 milligrams of alcohol in blood.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown had proven that the accused was driving his vehicle on October 4, 2013, in Burlington.

The Crown called witnesses who observed the accused driving his car away from a strip club in the early morning hours.

The accused testified that a stranger who resembled him drove the vehicle instead.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on credible eyewitness identification and rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and fantastical.

A one-year driving prohibition was imposed.

The accused was tried on two counts arising from an automobile collision: refusing to provide an evidential breath sample contrary to section 254(3) of the Criminal Code, and impaired driving.

The Crown alleged the accused was impaired by alcohol following a rear-end collision.

The court found that while the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused had committed an impaired driving offence, the evidential breath demand was not made "as soon as practicable" as required by law, rendering it unlawful.

Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence of an unequivocal refusal due to the officer's failure to record the precise words constituting the alleged refusal.

On the impaired driving charge, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with over 80 care or control and impaired care or control.

Police arrested the accused for possession of stolen property and subsequently made a breathalyzer demand based on observations of an odour of alcohol and allegedly slurred speech.

The defence brought a Charter application to exclude the breath sample results, arguing the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the demand.

The court found that the observations of alcohol odour and slurred speech were insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and the breathalyzer demand, constituting a section 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the seriousness of the breach and deprivation of liberty outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood, impaired driving, and dangerous driving.

The Crown relied on expert toxicology evidence to establish the over 80 charge.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved the assumption of no significant consumption of alcohol immediately prior to or during the time of driving.

The court found the over 80 charge proven beyond a reasonable doubt but acquitted on the impaired driving and dangerous driving charges due to insufficient evidence of impairment of ability to operate the vehicle and lack of proof of a marked departure from the standard of care.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop for speeding.

The defendant applied to stay proceedings based on alleged Charter violations and sought to exclude evidence.

The court found no merit to the Charter claims.

On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as unreliable due to significant contradictions with audio and video evidence.

The court found the defendant understood the instructions but deliberately failed to comply with the breath sample demand due to his intoxicated state and defiant attitude.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a motor vehicle accident on February 9, 2013, in which his car struck a snowmobile operated by a 16-year-old, causing serious injuries.

The trial proceeded as a blended voir dire regarding alleged Charter breaches.

The court excluded evidence obtained through unconstitutional questioning and breath samples derived therefrom, but admitted evidence of alcohol odour.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, failing to remain at the scene with knowledge of bodily harm, breach of probation, and obstruction of justice, but acquitted on the impaired driving charge due to exclusion of breath samples.

The court found the accused was impaired by alcohol and that his impairment was a significant contributing cause of the collision.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and having a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant sought to exclude her statements to police and breath test results on the grounds that her right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter was violated and that her statements were involuntary.

The court conducted a blended hearing on the Charter and voluntariness voir dire issues.

The court found that the defendant's section 10(b) rights were not violated, her statements were voluntary, and the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty of both offences.

The accused was charged with impaired driving by drug, dangerous driving, and breach of an undertaking.

The accused admitted to the actus reus of both impaired and dangerous driving but raised the defence of involuntary intoxication, claiming he did not knowingly consume Clonazepam.

The court found that while involuntary intoxication can undermine the mens rea for impaired driving and modify the objective standard for dangerous driving, the accused failed to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntary consumption.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to significant memory gaps and credibility concerns, and noted that evidence of powdery residue in the accused's nostrils was consistent with voluntary drug ingestion.

The court convicted on all three counts.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a suitable breath sample following a roadside stop.

The Crown alleged the accused unlawfully feigned numerous attempts to provide a suitable sample.

The court found that the accused understood the breath demand despite claiming language difficulties, and that he was deliberately feigning his efforts to avoid registering a true result.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as self-serving and found him guilty of the offence, establishing both the actus reus and mens rea elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a sample of his breath into an approved screening device (ASD) on June 4, 2012.

A police officer conducting a RIDE spot-check observed signs of impairment and made a lawful demand under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant refused to comply.

The main issue was whether the officer's failure to provide complete information about the consequences of non-compliance affected the validity of the demand or provided a reasonable excuse for the refusal.

The court found that the defendant's refusal was intentional and voluntary, and that neither the Criminal Code nor common law requires police to provide complete information about consequences.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "over 80" following a R.I.D.E. spot check.

The Crown relied on an Approved Screening Device (ASD) breath test failure and subsequent Intoxilyzer breath samples.

The defence challenged whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the ASD result, whether the officer breached the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and whether evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).

The court found that while the officer was entitled to administer the ASD test without delay, he breached the accused's rights by delaying 12 minutes before providing section 10(b) rights and by failing to make the breath demand "as soon as practicable" as required by section 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) and acquitted the accused on both charges.