2 total
The accused was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle over the legal limit after the court dismissed arguments regarding trial delay and breath sample timing.
The accused was charged with "over 80" (operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood).
The defence raised two arguments: (1) a Charter section 11(b) right to trial within a reasonable time, and (2) that the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.
The court found that the net delay after deducting defence-caused delay was 9 months and 22 days, below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice cases.
The defence failed to demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.
The court also found that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable within the circumstances, with all delays adequately explained or reasonable.
The accused was found guilty.
The court convicted the accused of driving over 80, finding that reasonable suspicion for an ASD demand does not require 'magic words'.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol in his body.
The Crown presented evidence of a traffic stop where the accused was observed swerving within his lane, and the officer detected the smell of alcohol.
The accused provided breath samples showing readings of 140 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.
The defence raised three issues: inadequate notice of the Certificate of the Qualified Breath Technician, non-compliance with section 254(2) of the Criminal Code regarding the ASD demand, and an alleged section 8 Charter breach.
The court found that reasonable notice had been established, that the officer had the requisite suspicion to make the ASD demand based on the totality of evidence, and that no Charter breach occurred.
