K. Seeley

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of driving with excess blood alcohol.

At trial, the judge found that the police officer arbitrarily detained the accused because the officer was looking for a specific green pickup truck, but stopped the accused's red pickup truck and continued the detention even after realizing it was the wrong vehicle.

The trial judge excluded the breath samples under section 24(2) of the Charter.

On appeal, the Crown argued the stop was a valid traffic stop under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's factual finding that the stop was an investigative detention, not a traffic stop, was supported by the evidence and not an error of law.

The accused was charged with aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and attempting to choke, suffocate, or strangle the complainant during a sexual assault.

The case turned on credibility between the complainant and the accused.

The court applied the framework from R. v. W.(D.) and rejected the accused’s account as internally and externally inconsistent and incompatible with the medical evidence.

Extensive medical and expert evidence established severe strangulation injuries, including ligature marks, petechiae, and subconjunctival hemorrhaging, consistent with the complainant’s testimony that she was strangled while sexually assaulted.

The court found the complainant credible and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed aggravated sexual assault that endangered her life.