M. Herman

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The defendant brought a Charter motion arguing that police violated his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown called evidence from the responding officer and the complainant.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant, that the detention was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act, and that the defendant understood the reasons for his detention.

All Charter arguments were rejected and the evidence was admitted as admissible.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of unauthorized use of a credit card.

Between March and August 2013, she defrauded her employer, a Shopper's Drug Mart, of $110,484.28 USD by facilitating fraudulent transactions using American Express credit cards while exploiting a security flaw in the company's system.

The employer suffered devastating consequences, losing his franchise agreement and substantial income.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 5½ months followed by three years of probation, taking into account the defendant's status as a permanent resident and the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence exceeding six months.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial proceeded as a blended trial and Charter voir dire.

The Crown called two witnesses: the arresting officer and a qualified breath technician.

The defence challenged whether the roadside screening device demand was made "forthwith" as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, and whether breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by section 258(1)(c) to preserve the statutory presumptions.

The court found no breach regarding the "forthwith" requirement but concluded that multiple unexplained delays in the custody process violated the "as soon as practicable" requirement, resulting in acquittal.