Lilit Izakelian

The respondent, Orrell Higgins, was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm following a collision where his vehicle accelerated into a transport truck without braking, seriously injuring his passenger.

The court examined the objective standard for dangerous driving (marked departure) and the more stringent standard for criminal negligence (marked and substantial departure, wanton disregard).

While acknowledging the objectively dangerous driving and inattention, the court found that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct constituted a "marked departure" or "wanton disregard" required for criminal liability.

Regarding impaired driving, despite a projected blood alcohol concentration (BAC) range of 63-94 mg/100ml, the court had reasonable doubt about actual impairment due to individual variability in alcohol effects.

Consequently, the respondent was found not guilty of all charges.

Richard Stewart was charged with aggravated assault against Salina Parkinson following a physical altercation in his home.

The incident occurred after Stewart discovered money missing from his safe, leading to a confrontation with his wife's son, Dhillon.

Ms. Parkinson intervened in the fight between Stewart and Dhillon and was stabbed.

The court assessed the credibility of the testimonies from Stewart, his wife Shauna Scott, and Ms. Parkinson, applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

Significant inconsistencies and exaggerations were noted across all accounts.

While Ms. Parkinson testified that Stewart was the only other person in the room when she was stabbed, the court found her account of removing Dhillon to be implausible and noted that neither she nor Ms. Scott saw Stewart with a weapon.

Evidence suggested Dhillon had a weapon and inflicted injuries on Stewart.

The court concluded that another reasonable inference from the totality of the accepted evidence was that Dhillon may have caused Ms. Parkinson's injuries.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove Stewart's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and he was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with being in care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80mg per 100ml of blood.

The accused was found asleep in his vehicle with the engine running in a parking lot at Exhibition Place.

The Crown alleged the accused was in care and control; the accused argued he had no intention to drive and was waiting for a friend to pick him up.

The court found no breach of Charter rights regarding the arrest and breath demand.

On the care and control issue, the court found the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of intention to drive and that there was no realistic risk of danger in the particular circumstances, resulting in an acquittal.

Alex James and Jesse Dawson were arrested on drug and firearms charges at James' apartment.

Police found a loaded handgun, marijuana, cash, and drug paraphernalia in James' bedroom, and another handgun, cocaine, and an electronic scale outside the apartment.

Both defendants denied knowledge of the weapons and drugs.

The court analyzed the evidence, including the defendants' credibility under R. v. W. (D.), and the law of possession under section 4(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court found Dawson guilty of possession of a handgun and cocaine for trafficking, concluding he knew police were present and dropped the items while fleeing.

James was found guilty of possession of a handgun, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of proceeds of crime, as the court disbelieved his denial of knowledge regarding the items in his bedroom.

The applicant, Alex James, sought to exclude evidence (heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana, and a firearm) seized from his apartment, arguing a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights due to an unreasonable search and misleading police testimony.

The court found that Detective Constable Gini conducted a warrantless search of a toilet in the applicant's bedroom, removed drugs, and subsequently provided misleading notes and preliminary hearing testimony about the timing of the discovery.

Applying the R. v. Grant test for s. 24(2) Charter exclusion, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct, particularly the officer's attempts to conceal his actions, outweighed the diminished impact on the applicant's privacy and society's interest in the adjudication on the merits for that specific evidence.

The application was granted in part, excluding only the drugs found in the toilet adjacent to bedroom #3, while other evidence obtained through a subsequent lawful search warrant executed in good faith by other officers was admitted.

The applicant, Alex James, sought to exclude evidence seized from his apartment, arguing violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The police conducted surveillance and a warrantless entry into the apartment based on exigent circumstances, leading to arrests and seizure of firearms and drugs.

The applicant challenged the search warrant's validity and the warrantless entry.

The court dismissed the application, finding the search warrant was justified and the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances.

Even if Charter rights were breached, the evidence would be admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter, applying the Grant factors, due to the good faith of the officers and the seriousness of the alleged offences.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood contrary to s. 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded as a blended hearing addressing both Charter applications and the trial on the merits.

The defence raised four Charter issues: (1) whether the approved screening device (ASD) was administered forthwith and whether the right to counsel was violated; (2) whether there was a violation of s. 8 of the Charter based on an allegedly unreliable ASD; (3) whether the arrest constituted arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter; and (4) whether the breath demand under s. 254(3) was made as soon as practicable.

The court found that all Charter applications lacked merit and convicted the accused based on breath samples showing 124 mg and 122 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand.

The accused challenged the arrest and breath demand on Charter grounds, alleging lack of reasonable and probable grounds and breach of right to counsel.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and that the accused's right to counsel was adequately protected despite officers remaining visible outside a partially open hospital observation room door.

The court found the accused guilty of failure to comply with the breath demand based on his willful and voluntary failure to provide an adequate sample, and guilty of impaired driving based on the totality of the evidence and the adverse inference from his refusal to provide a breath sample.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit.

The accused was found sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle with keys in the glove compartment.

The Crown alleged care and control; the defence argued the accused had arranged for a sober driver to pick him up and had no intention to drive.

The court found the statutory presumption of care and control was rebutted and that no realistic risk of danger existed that the vehicle would be set in motion.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.