Lana Walker

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

Police observed unusual driving behavior and conducted roadside screening and breath testing.

The Crown presented toxicology and intoxilyzer evidence establishing impairment.

However, the court found multiple Charter breaches: violations of language rights (sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b)) as the accused, a Francophone, was not provided adequate communication in French during arrest, testing, and release procedures; and a violation of section 9 Charter rights due to unlawful overholding in custody.

The court determined that the convergence of these breaches warranted a stay of proceedings rather than exclusion of evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to extortion under section 346(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

He threatened to disseminate intimate images of a young female complainant unless she engaged in sexual intercourse with him.

The Crown sought 9 to 12 months custody plus probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 18 months or alternatively 90 days intermittent jail.

The central issue was whether the offence constituted a "serious personal injury offence" that would preclude a conditional sentence.

The court found that the threats, while abhorrent and extortionate, did not constitute violence or attempted violence as contemplated by the legislation, distinguishing the case from robbery or assault cases involving weapons.

The court imposed a 15-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including 12 months house arrest, followed by 21 months probation.

The accused was tried on charges of assault with a weapon, uttering threats to cause death, sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 16, and breach of probation.

The allegations arose from two incidents involving a teenage complainant and her mother, including unwanted sexual touching of the minor in a stairwell and later threats with a sharp metal object during an argument.

The defence argued the complainants were not credible due to inconsistencies, alleged motives to fabricate, and post‑offence conduct.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the complainants credible and the discrepancies minor and explainable given the age of the young complainant and passage of time.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon, uttering threats, sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of probation, with a stay entered on the sexual assault count under the Kienapple principle.