Russell Allegra

The accused was charged with impaired driving, dangerous driving, unlawful possession of controlled substances, and driving while suspended.

The police stopped the accused based on a dispatch report of erratic driving, but the arresting officer did not observe erratic driving.

The officer arrested the accused for impaired driving based on red eyes, an odour of alcohol, and a fumbled wallet, without using an approved screening device.

Breath tests showed alcohol levels well below the legal limit.

A subsequent drug evaluation led to a urine demand.

The court found the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, and excluded the drug and urine evidence under s. 24(2).

Even if the evidence were admitted, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the defendant’s statement of defence and counterclaim in a civil assault action.

The defendant had previously pleaded guilty in criminal proceedings to assault with a weapon arising from the same incident.

The court held that the guilty plea conclusively established that the defendant engaged in intentional conduct and that attempts in the pleading to characterize the incident as accidental constituted an abuse of process by attempting to relitigate matters already determined.

However, the defendant remained entitled to contest damages, describe surrounding events, and pursue a counterclaim for assault arising from the altercation.

Paragraphs attempting to deny intentional conduct were struck, but the balance of the defence and counterclaim were allowed to stand.

The accused brought a Charter motion alleging that police violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by forcibly entering and searching his residence after responding to a disconnected 9‑1‑1 call.

Officers heard yelling and swearing in the background of the call and received conflicting explanations from occupants who refused to open the door for approximately fifteen minutes.

Police ultimately forced entry to verify whether anyone inside required assistance and conducted a limited search of the residence, discovering cannabis plants.

The court held that under the common law duty to protect life and safety, police were justified in entering the dwelling to investigate a potential emergency.

The entry and subsequent protective search were reasonable and did not breach the accused’s Charter rights.