2 total
Defendant convicted under Quarantine Act for refusing mandatory hotel stay and COVID-19 test upon entering Canada.
The defendant, a Canadian citizen, returned to Canada by air during the COVID-19 pandemic and was charged under the Quarantine Act for failing to book a mandatory 3-day stay at a government-approved hotel and refusing to undergo a Day 1 COVID-19 molecular test at the airport.
The defendant raised a mistake of fact defence, arguing she believed she had complied with the entry requirements and that the additional requirements violated her Charter rights.
The court found that the prosecution proved the actus reus of the strict liability offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court rejected the mistake of fact defence, holding that the defendant's mistaken beliefs were actually mistakes of law, which is not a valid defence, and that her beliefs were not objectively reasonable.
The defendant was convicted of both offences.
The court excluded breath sample evidence due to a section 10(b) Charter breach and dismissed the charge.
The defendant was charged with "Young Driver – Blood Alcohol Above Zero" contrary to section 44.1(5) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The defendant brought a Charter motion alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court found that the defendant's right to be advised of her right to retain and instruct counsel was infringed under section 10(b).
Applying the R. v. Grant analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
With the breath sample evidence excluded and no other admissible evidence of blood alcohol concentration, the court dismissed the charge, finding the prosecution failed to prove an essential element of the offence.
