Unlock 7 more sections of this judge’s background. Start your 7-day free trial.
Appeared as counsel in 8 cases (2012–2016)
42 total
The court admitted breath test evidence under section 24(2) despite finding the arresting officer lacked subjective reasonable grounds.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath test results and physical observations of impairment.
The accused alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.
The court found that while the officer lacked subjective reasonable grounds to believe the accused was impaired at the time of arrest, objectively reasonable grounds existed.
The court also found no breach of sections 7, 10(a), or 10(b).
Under section 24(2) analysis, the court admitted the breath test evidence, finding that while the Charter violation was serious, the impact on the accused's rights was minimal and society's interest in adjudication on the merits strongly favoured admission.
The court dismissed a section 11(b) Charter application for delay because the 14-month net delay fell below the Jordan presumptive ceiling.
The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle over 80 contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis that the right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.
The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which sets a presumptive ceiling of 18 months for trials in provincial court.
The net delay was 14 months and 3 days, falling below the ceiling.
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and that the case did not markedly exceed reasonable time requirements.
The application was dismissed.