Maeve A. Mungovan

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was pulled over at 3:11 AM on June 4, 2013, after failing an approved screening device test.

He provided breath samples at 4:20 AM and 4:42 AM showing readings of 160 and 150 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood respectively.

The accused challenged the validity of the approved instrument demand under s. 24(2) of the Charter and argued that the statutory presumptions of identity under s. 258(1)(c) and (d.1) had been rebutted by evidence of "bolus drinking" (rapid consumption of alcohol immediately before being pulled over).

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand and that the presumptions had not been rebutted.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit, contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a RIDE spot-check on December 9, 2011, the defendant was arrested and provided breath samples showing blood alcohol concentrations well in excess of the legal limit.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 10(a), 10(b), and 8 of the Charter.

The court found that the defendant's Charter rights were violated and excluded all evidence obtained following the violations pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

Both charges were dismissed.

The applicant, Gulf Oil Corporation, applied to the Supreme Court of Canada under s. 43 of the Canada Evidence Act to enforce letters rogatory issued by United States courts.

The letters sought the production of documents held by the applicant's Canadian subsidiaries for use in US anti-trust litigation regarding a uranium cartel.

The Canadian government opposed disclosure on public policy grounds, citing the Uranium Information Security Regulations and Canadian sovereignty.

The Court assumed jurisdiction but dismissed the application, holding that it would be a wrongful exercise of discretion to enforce the letters rogatory contrary to the stated public policy of the Canadian government.