M. Boissonneault

The accused was stopped at a RIDE spot check and an officer made a breath demand under section 320.27(1)(b) of the Criminal Code based on reasonable suspicion.

The officer's grounds for suspicion were insufficient to meet the objective standard.

The Crown sought to rely on section 320.27(2) (mandatory alcohol screening) at trial, which does not require reasonable suspicion.

The court found that the two subsections are not mutually exclusive and that an officer need not subjectively rely on section 320.27(2) for a demand to be valid under that provision.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the breath demand and dismissed the Charter application.

This criminal trial concerned one count of sexual assault.

The prosecution alleged the defendant sexually assaulted the complainant in a washroom stall at a wedding reception.

Both the complainant and defendant provided conflicting accounts of the events.

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity, leading to an acquittal.

The decision emphasizes that a finding of reasonable doubt about consent is not a positive finding of consent, and the burden of proof remains with the prosecution.