Melissa Daigle

The accused was charged with driving while impaired by a drug following a traffic stop on Highway 118.

The Crown alleged the accused's ability to drive was impaired by a central nervous system depressant based on poor driving observations, a failed roadside sobriety test, and a Drug Recognition Expert evaluation.

The accused's urine tested positive for Olanzapine, an anti-psychotic medication.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: the accused was not promptly informed of his right to counsel following arrest, the Drug Recognition Expert evaluation demand was not made as soon as practicable, and the accused was arbitrarily detained after the investigation was completed.

The court excluded the evidence of the Drug Recognition Expert evaluation and urine analysis under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with "Over 80" following a traffic stop where the officer detected an odour of alcohol.

The defence raised multiple Charter breaches including sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found no section 7 breach regarding lost in-car video evidence, no section 8 breach regarding the timing of the ASD demand, and no section 9 breach regarding arbitrary detention.

The court found a brief section 10(b) breach (8 minutes) regarding the failure to provide right to counsel advice immediately upon detention for investigation, but the accused was offered the opportunity to contact duty counsel at the roadside and did speak with duty counsel at the station before approved instrument testing.

The court applied the section 24(2) analysis and admitted the breath test evidence, finding all Grant factors favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with breaching a restraining order under section 127 of the Criminal Code by communicating indirectly with the protected person through a third party.

The accused sent text messages to an intermediary stating "you should tell Beverly that I pose no threat to her" in the context of arranging access to his children.

The court found that while the communication technically violated the order, the de minimis principle applied, as the conduct was so trivial and trifling as to raise no abiding concern to public or community interest.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with care and control of an automobile while impaired and having a blood alcohol limit exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant's vehicle was found stuck in sand on the shoulder of a deserted road near Kleinberg.

The defendant was standing in a field approximately 50-60 feet from the vehicle, stating he was waiting for a ride.

The Crown sought to prove care and control based on circumstantial evidence and the defendant's proximity to the vehicle.

The court found that while the Crown established reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in care and control of the motor vehicle at the time of police arrival.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on September 24, 2015.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and sought to exclude breath test results on the grounds that his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(a) were infringed.

The court found that the officer lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant for impaired driving, as the observed driving infractions were minimal and the alleged signs of impairment (slurred speech, weaving) were not credibly established.

The court also found breaches of the defendant's section 10(a) and 10(b) rights due to a 14-15 minute delay in providing reasons for detention and access to counsel.

While the section 10 breach was found not to warrant exclusion of evidence, the section 8 breach was found to be serious and, combined with the lack of evidence of impairment, led to the exclusion of the breath test results.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging a breach of s. 8 rights, arguing that the investigating officer failed to consider whether the accused had consumed alcohol within 15 minutes of the approved screening device (ASD) demand, which could have resulted in residual mouth alcohol affecting the test result.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and that officers are not required to inquire about the timing of the last drink consumed.

The court held that the mere possibility of residual mouth alcohol does not preclude reliance on an ASD result absent credible evidence to the contrary.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with "Over 80" following a traffic stop for running a red light.

The Crown obtained breath samples through an Approved Instrument (AI) demand after the accused failed an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the AI demand on the basis that it was made in English to an accused with limited English proficiency, and that subsequent translation by a police officer did not cure the defect.

The court found that the initial demand by the arresting officer was lawful under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code, that lack of understanding due to language difficulty does not invalidate the demand, and that the demand was properly translated into Mandarin before testing.

The court also found that even if there were a technical breach, exclusion of evidence would not be warranted under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code following an altercation outside a bar.

The complainant alleged the accused punched her in the face, causing her to fall to the ground.

The accused claimed he did not make physical contact and that the complainant tripped and fell on her own.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of witness evidence.

The court found the complainant's evidence, corroborated by video evidence and the testimony of a sober independent witness, established that the accused rushed toward the complainant with an extended arm and made contact with her head area, causing her to fall.

The accused's evidence was found to be inconsistent with the video record and other credible evidence.

The court found the Crown proved the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and entered a conviction.