2 total
A youth charged with armed robbery while on bail was granted release under strict house arrest.
A youth charged with armed robbery, forcible confinement, and bail violations sought release pending trial.
The Crown argued the accused posed a risk to public safety and had demonstrated inability to comply with bail conditions.
The defence proposed release to the accused's mother with assistance from his sisters, offering house arrest if necessary.
The court found that while the charges were serious and the accused had breached previous bail conditions, detention was not justified on tertiary grounds.
However, detention was necessary on secondary grounds unless strict house arrest conditions could be enforced.
The court granted release on recognizance with the mother as primary surety and both sisters as co-sureties, subject to strict house arrest conditions and prohibitions on contact with associates and attendance at specified locations.
The accused was acquitted because the police failed to make a proper breath demand under section 254(3).
The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.
The Crown called two police officers who testified regarding the traffic stop, the approved screening device test, and the subsequent breath samples provided at the police station.
The central issue was whether a proper demand pursuant to section 254(3) of the Criminal Code had been made.
The trial judge found that the officers had only made an approved screening device demand under section 254(2), not the required approved instrument demand under section 254(3).
The trial judge concluded that a proper demand under section 254(3) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of the breath certificate and that the Crown could not rely on the presumption of accuracy.
An acquittal was entered.
