Impaired driving

The defendant was charged with driving dangerously, failing to remain and provide particulars following a motor vehicle collision, impaired operation of a motor vehicle, and driving with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The defendant brought Charter applications seeking to exclude evidence for violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded that two constitutional violations occurred: arbitrary detention and failure to immediately inform of the right to counsel.

The court found a section 8 Charter violation regarding an unlawful search of the defendant's garage but rejected the section 9 and 10(b) violation claims.

Under section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded only the defendant's brief confession made outside the garage, while admitting all other evidence.

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 operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate her vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption based on credible evidence from police officers and an independent witness.

However, the Crown failed to prove the refusal charge.

The court found that given the extent of the accused's intoxication and resulting mental confusion and disorientation at the time of the breath demand, a reasonable doubt existed regarding the mental element of the refusal offence.

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving but acquitted of the refusal charge.

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 impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 mg/100 ml) following a traffic stop on Highway 401.

The Crown relied on Intoxilyzer breath test results showing readings of 104 and 99 mg/100 ml.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breath test results on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that while the accused's right to silence under section 7 was breached when the breath technician misinformed him about the scope of that right, the breach did not warrant exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2).

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds to make the breath demand based on the accused's erratic driving and physical signs of impairment.

The court rejected arguments regarding the reliability of the Intoxilyzer machine and the alcohol standard solution used for calibration.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision in Magnetawan, Ontario on April 25, 2016.

The Crown's evidence established the collision, the accused's impairment, and breath test results of 137 mg and 146 mg respectively.

However, the Crown conceded that the first breath sample was taken outside the two-hour statutory window required by the Criminal Code.

Without expert toxicology evidence to perform retrograde extrapolation, the court found the Crown had not proven all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The defendant was charged with "over 80" (care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol above the legal limit).

The Crown's evidence showed the defendant was stopped by police in an area known for prostitution and drug offences, based solely on the vehicle "circling" the area.

Following the stop, the defendant was subjected to a roadside screening device demand, which he failed, leading to arrest and breath samples showing 100 and 90 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (legal limit: 80).

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the initial stop under section 9 of the Charter.

The court found the stop was arbitrary and violated the defendant's Charter rights, and excluded the evidence obtained as a result.

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

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment by the arresting officer and breath analysis results.

The court found that the police failed to conduct the breath tests as soon as practicable, contrary to statutory requirements, thereby eliminating the presumption of identity for the blood alcohol readings.

Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment based on the totality of circumstances, including video evidence contradicting the officer's testimony regarding the defendant's physical coordination.

Both charges were 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 having care and control of a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol content exceeded 80 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused's vehicle had run out of gas on the roadway, and he was found seated in the driver's seat waiting for a tow truck to bring him fuel.

Police conducted a roadside investigation, obtained a failed approved screening device test, and subsequently obtained two breath samples exceeding the legal limit.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the investigation and arrest on Charter grounds and argued that the Crown had failed to prove care and control.

The court rejected all Charter challenges and found that the Crown had proven de facto care and control beyond a reasonable doubt, alternatively relying on the presumption in s.258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was convicted.

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

The Crown withdrew the over-80 charge and did not introduce breath test results.

The defence initially pursued a Charter application but abandoned it after evidence was heard.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's poor driving was caused by alcohol impairment rather than a medical condition or language barrier.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on the totality of evidence, including aggressive driving patterns, inconsistent defence testimony, and the accused's behaviour following police intervention.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and having care or control of a motor vehicle on December 31, 2013.

The vehicle had mounted a snowbank after the accused swerved to avoid a collision.

When police arrived, the accused was found in the driver's seat with keys in the ignition.

The court examined whether the accused had care or control of the vehicle despite it being immobilized on the snowbank, and whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable as required by law.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand after being pulled over for speeding and suspected impaired driving.

Despite multiple opportunities and instructions, the defendant was unable to produce an adequate breath sample, resulting in arrest.

The Crown sought conviction under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court acquitted the defendant, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally failed to comply with the demand.

The court adopted the Lewko/Soucy formulation of mens rea, requiring proof of intentional non-compliance rather than mere knowledge or recklessness.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following his arrest on December 11, 2012.

The Crown alleged the accused drove a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and subsequently refused to comply with breath demands made by two police officers.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and breath demands, alleging violations of Charter sections 8 and 9.

The court found the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and make the initial breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, including the accused's flight from police, strong odour of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and staggering.

The court found the accused guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample but acquitted him of impaired driving, finding the evidence of impairment, while suspicious, did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused 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 relied on breath sample evidence obtained at the police station.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the officer failed to make a valid demand for the approved screening device immediately upon forming reasonable suspicion, unlawfully detained the accused at the roadside without informing him of his detention or reasons therefor, and failed to advise the accused of his right to counsel.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

Two applicants charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mgs per 100 ml of blood brought a motion for disclosure of records relating to the Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device used in their cases.

The Crown refused disclosure on grounds of irrelevance.

The court ordered disclosure of six categories of information including the analyst's certificate for the alcohol solution, calibration records, maintenance logs, and previous subject test records (with personal identifiers redacted).

The court found that the disclosure sought was relevant to allow the accused to meet their burden under section 258 of the Criminal Code to prove the instrument malfunctioned or was operated improperly.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over 80 milligrams percent.

He brought an application for a judicial stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time.

The case was approximately 15 months old at the scheduled trial date.

The court found that the combined institutional and Crown-attributable delay exceeded 12 months, which was well in excess of what is constitutionally tolerable.

Although the allegations were serious and created heightened public interest, the excessive delay, combined with significant prejudice to the accused's security of the person, warranted a stay of proceedings.

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

The Crown relied on breath test results showing 250 and 259 milligrams.

The defence challenged the reliability of the test results, arguing operator error occurred when the breath technician failed to observe the mandatory 15-minute waiting period after the accused used an inhaler.

The court found that although the technician deviated from recommended procedures, the deviation did not affect the reliability of the results.

The two test samples were in close agreement, the slope detector did not invalidate the sample, and the evidence did not support that the inhaler contained alcohol.

The court rejected the accused's credibility regarding the type of inhaler used and found the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with care or control with excess blood alcohol and impaired care or control following a motor vehicle incident.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence of erratic driving, manifest signs of impairment, and breath analysis results.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging police misconduct including improper handcuffing, an allegedly planted drug baggie, failure to preserve cell video evidence, and an improperly conducted strip search.

The court found that while some police conduct was disrespectful and the Crown breached its disclosure obligation regarding the video, these breaches did not warrant a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of both charges.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operation of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

A police officer observed a light-coloured van being driven at excessive speed in Stouffville, Ontario.

After losing sight of the vehicle, the officer discovered a damaged Toyota Sienna van parked on Catherine Crescent with a blown tire.

The defendant was found nearby underneath a Jeep.

The Crown's case rested on establishing that the defendant was the operator of the van.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts based on circumstantial evidence including the defendant's proximity to the vehicle, his appearance matching the driver's description, his statements suggesting consciousness of guilt, and evidence that keys in his possession operated the van's key fob.

The charge of driving with excess alcohol was stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v. Kienapple.