Impaired driving

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

A concerned citizen reported erratic driving, and the accused was arrested after failing a screening device test.

The Crown's case on the over 80 charge failed because the first breath sample was not taken as soon as practicable; the officer delayed the testing by 24 minutes to facilitate the accused's contact with duty counsel despite the accused's express declination of that right.

The impaired operation charge succeeded based on the constellation of observations by both the citizen witness and the arresting officer, establishing impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and over the legal limit, resisting arrest, and assault with intent to resist arrest, following her arrest at a banquet hall parking lot.

The Crown alleged the accused was found behind the wheel of her vehicle after leaving a Christmas party.

The accused applied for Charter relief alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter applications but acquitted the accused on the impaired and over 80 charges, finding she had rebutted the statutory presumption of care and control and that no realistic risk of danger existed.

The accused was convicted of resisting arrest but acquitted of assault with intent to resist arrest.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80) and driving without a valid license.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, arguing his s. 10(b) right to counsel was violated.

The court found the defendant explicitly waived his right to counsel on multiple occasions despite police efforts to facilitate contact with duty counsel.

The defendant's statements were found to be voluntary.

On the trial proper, the court found the defendant was driving within two hours of the first breath test, satisfying the statutory requirement for the presumption of identity.

The defendant was convicted on both charges.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and care or control of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol concentration (over 80).

The Crown alleged the defendant was found lying in the roadway at 4:16 a.m., subsequently entered his vehicle which was running, and exhibited signs of impairment.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the admissibility of breath test results on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on reasonable and probable grounds, any Charter violations were technical and cured, and the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown charged the defendant with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80) following a 911 call reporting erratic driving.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test results and statements to police, alleging violations of Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest and breath demand under sections 8 and 9, but found a breach of section 10(b) when police made only a token effort to facilitate contact with the defendant's counsel of choice.

Under section 24(2), the court excluded the defendant's statements but admitted the breath test results.

The defendant was found guilty of both impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol following a collision at a gas station.

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment before and after arrest, breath sample analysis, and toxicological evidence.

The defendant raised multiple Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of the arrest, the demand for breath samples, interpretation services, and the right to counsel.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts after rejecting all Charter challenges and finding compelling evidence of impairment based on the totality of circumstances.

The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over .08 contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant brought a motion alleging breaches of her Charter rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the applicant's right to counsel of choice under section 10(b) was breached when the police officer failed to inform the applicant of a third option to contact any lawyer and instead "foisted" duty counsel upon her without providing resources such as a lawyer's directory or internet access.

The court found that the officer's failure to comply with the informational component of the right to counsel of choice deprived the applicant of making a fully informed choice.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the breath test results, finding that exclusion best served the long-term repute of the administration of justice, and dismissed the charge.

The applicant was charged with failing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code following a single-vehicle collision.

At trial, the applicant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant was unlawfully handcuffed during the breath demand without reasonable justification for officer safety.

The handcuffing was found to be arbitrary and the breath sample demand was conducted in an unreasonable manner.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court excluded the evidence and dismissed the charge.

The defendant applied for a mistrial after the Crown cross-examined him regarding three previous drinking and driving charges during trial on an "Over 80" charge.

The Crown's stated purpose was to establish the defendant's familiarity with the criminal justice system in response to his Charter voir dire evidence regarding his understanding of the right to counsel.

The court found that while the Crown did not act with improper purpose, the questions were highly prejudicial with minimal probative value.

The court declared a mistrial, finding that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed such that a fully informed observer could reasonably conclude the trial was unfair.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle "Over 80" following a police investigation on December 10, 2015.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the investigation by bringing a blended Charter application and trial, alleging breaches of Sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant argued that the officer improperly delayed providing rights to counsel regarding a marijuana possession charge in order to prioritize the drinking and driving investigation.

The court dismissed the Charter application and found the defendant guilty, holding that the officer lawfully conducted the sobriety investigation within the parameters of Highway Traffic Act authority and that the officer was not obligated to immediately provide rights to counsel regarding the possession charge.

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

The Crown's case relied on breath sample readings of 260 and 240 milligrams, approximately three times the legal limit.

The central issue was whether the accused's Charter rights under sections 7 and 9 were breached when police held him for a show cause bail hearing without reasonable grounds, contrary to the presumption of release.

The court found an arbitrary detention breach based on the accused's status as a resident alien with property in Florida, coupled with insufficient police investigation into his Ontario roots.

The breath sample readings were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was acquitted of the criminal charges but subject to a common law peace bond.

The accused was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand made by a peace officer pursuant to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused refused to provide a breath sample at the roadside following a motor vehicle collision.

The accused raised two defences: first, that his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter was violated; and second, that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that he had operated the motor vehicle within the preceding three hours.

The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the accused's proximity to the vehicle and conflicting statements from his wife.

The court also found that the demand was made promptly and that the refusal occurred within the "forthwith" timeframe, meaning the accused's Charter rights were not engaged.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit (over 80).

The Crown proved the over 80 charge through breath test results.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of impaired driving due to weak evidence of impairment.

The court also found serious Charter violations: an unlawful and arbitrary detention under section 9 based on an erroneous policy requiring out-of-province residents to post bonds, and a violation of the right to counsel under section 10(b).

The court granted a stay of proceedings on the over 80 count due to the severity of the Charter violations and the state's entrenched discriminatory release practices.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit and impaired driving contrary to sections 253(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's evidence established that the accused was found in a vehicle stuck in snow in a private driveway with signs of impairment.

The defence conceded that all technical requirements of both charges were met and raised the defence of necessity, arguing the accused drove while impaired to locate and assist an intoxicated co-worker who had left the cabin in cold weather.

The court found no air of reality to the necessity defence, as there was no imminent peril, reasonable alternatives existed (such as walking), and the harm of impaired driving outweighed any speculative harm to the co-worker.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 milligrams of alcohol in blood following a motor vehicle stop.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test evidence, alleging violations of Charter rights to counsel under section 10(b).

The court rejected the defence argument that police failed to provide adequate information about accessing private counsel, finding that the accused made an informed waiver by twice choosing duty counsel over private counsel.

The court distinguished Ontario jurisprudence from recent western Canadian cases imposing broader informational duties on police.

The court convicted on the over 80 charge and stayed the impaired charge.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, and failing or refusing to comply with a breath sample demand.

The Crown relied on evidence of the accused striking a parked car with considerable force, post-accident physical characteristics, and the accused's failure to provide suitable breath samples.

The accused's defence was that the accident resulted from being blinded by oncoming high-beam headlights, that she did not leave the scene with requisite intent, and that she was unable to provide suitable samples due to respiratory problems.

The court found reasonable doubt on all three charges and dismissed them.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude breath test results.

The court found that the border services officer had formed a reasonable suspicion that the accused had consumed alcohol based on observations including the odour of alcohol on the accused's breath, red cheeks, and discovery of an empty bottle of Jägermeister.

The court determined that an approved screening device was used and that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the demand under section 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court also found no breach of section 10(b) rights, as the change in investigation from immigration/customs to impaired driving did not trigger a requirement to re-advise the accused of his right to counsel.

The breath test results were admitted into evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle following a collision with a taxi cab on October 9, 2011.

After consuming three beers at a bar, the accused collided with a taxi, failed to stop, drove the wrong way down a one-way street, and nearly collided with a police vehicle.

The Crown alleged impairment by alcohol.

The defence argued that the accused's observed symptoms could be attributed to shock from the accident and his inexperience as a driver.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the totality of circumstances—including the collision, subsequent driving errors, officer observations of unsteadiness and incoherence, and the accused's own admission that alcohol was affecting his social functioning—established impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought four to six months imprisonment, an 18-month driving prohibition, 12 months probation, and a DNA order.

The defence sought 90 days intermittent sentence, arguing the accused supported his parents and would lose employment.

The court imposed five months imprisonment, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount in drinking and driving cases, particularly where bodily harm resulted.

The court rejected the intermittent sentence despite the accused's otherwise positive circumstances, emphasizing the serious harm caused to the victim and his family.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit and breaching a probation order by driving without a valid license.

The charges arose from a RIDE spot check.

The court examined four key issues: whether police failed to wait 15 minutes for residual mouth alcohol to dissipate before using the approved screening device; whether the Intoxilyzer 8000C was an approved instrument; whether the defendant's blood alcohol level was over 80 at the time of the stop; and whether the Crown proved the probation breach beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the defendant guilty on both charges.