Ian Laing

The accused was charged with sexual interference against a young relative.

The allegations involved incidents occurring during overnight visits when the complainant was between four and eight years old.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence against the accused's denial and the limited opportunity to commit the offences.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court found the accused's evidence, supported by his wife's testimony regarding the physical layout of the home and timeline of events, raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

At trial, he brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds to make the roadside screening demand, dismissing the ss. 8 and 9 claims.

However, the court found a breach of s. 10(b) because the officer delayed informing the accused of his right to counsel for approximately 6 to 8 minutes after arrest, and provided confusing information about duty counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under s. 24(2) due to the officer's lack of understanding of the immediacy requirement and the impact on the accused.

The accused was acquitted.