K. Hull

The offender, a bookkeeper, pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 for stealing approximately $395,000 from her employers over several years.

The Crown sought 4 to 6 months of incarceration, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized general deterrence for large-scale employee thefts involving a breach of trust.

Applying the factors from R. v. Bogart, the court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed 5 months of incarceration followed by two years of probation, along with restitution orders.

The appellant appealed a conviction for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider relevant jurisprudence regarding the “last chance” doctrine where an accused initially refuses but subsequently offers to comply with an approved screening device demand shortly thereafter.

The court held that the refusal was clear, repeated, and unequivocal, and that the subsequent offer to comply minutes later did not negate the completed offence.

The trial judge properly applied the jurisprudence, including the principle that compliance must be immediate and not at a time chosen by the driver.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction decision that dismissed charges of impaired driving and driving with blood alcohol over the legal limit.

The trial judge found that Intoxilyzer samples were not taken “as soon as practicable” under s. 258(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code due to an unexplained ten‑minute delay between the request for an approved screening device and the officer’s arrival at the scene.

The Crown argued the trial judge misapplied the law, particularly the principles from appellate authority addressing the “forthwith” requirement for roadside screening device demands.

The appeal court held that the trial judge applied the correct legal test and reasonably assessed the circumstances in concluding that the delay was unexplained and rendered the breath samples non‑compliant with the statutory requirement.

Deference was owed to the trial judge’s factual findings.