Michael Engel

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a mandatory alcohol screening demand made pursuant to section 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code following a traffic stop for speeding.

The accused made four attempts to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device, each resulting in a "blow interruption" error.

The court found that the accused's attempts were feigned and constituted an unequivocal refusal to comply with the lawful demand.

The court rejected Charter arguments regarding sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was convicted of failing to comply with the screening demand and also pleaded guilty to speeding.

The applicant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that while the net delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling, the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption by establishing exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that the applicant failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings and that the case did not take markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial judge found that while the police officer breached the accused's section 10(a) Charter rights by failing to promptly inform him that the nature of his detention had changed from a speeding investigation to an impaired driving investigation, the officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand and did not breach section 8 rights.

The trial judge excluded statements made by the accused at the roadside but admitted the breath test results under section 24(2) analysis.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with Over 80 and brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged infringement of section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (right to trial within a reasonable time).

The Crown had stayed an Impaired Driving charge.

The trial was scheduled for March 29, 2017, with the charge arising from August 16, 2015.

The court applied the post-Jordan framework for analyzing delay and found that while the net delay of 15 months and 1 week exceeded what would have been considered reasonable under the previous Morin framework, it fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court attributed approximately 4 months and 4 days to defence delay, primarily due to the defence's failure to conduct timely pre-trials despite having sufficient disclosure to proceed.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and drive over 80 after being stopped leaving a parking garage in downtown Toronto.

The accused raised multiple Charter motions challenging the grounds for arrest, delays in administering the approved screening device, delays in providing the breath demand, and violations of the right to counsel of choice.

The court found two Charter breaches: a section 8 breach regarding the failure to provide the breath demand as soon as practicable, and a section 10(b) breach regarding the right to counsel of choice at the station.

However, applying the section 24(2) test from R v Grant, the court admitted the breath evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on extensive evidence of impairment observed by security and police, as well as video footage.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit following a multi-vehicle collision in Toronto.

The trial was blended with a Charter voir dire addressing numerous constitutional and procedural issues.

The court found that while the Crown proved the defendant was the driver of the vehicle involved, it failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, the court found breaches of the defendant's Charter rights regarding the right to counsel and the timing of breath sample demands.

The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to serious breaches of the right to counsel.

Both charges were dismissed and the defendant was acquitted.

The defendant brought a motion for a judicial stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The defendant was charged on January 4, 2013, with impaired driving, possession of a controlled substance, and Highway Traffic Act offences.

Trial dates were not set until June 4, 2013, more than fifteen months after the charge.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that the total delay of fifteen months, with approximately twelve months attributable to institutional delay and Crown disclosure delays, constituted an unreasonable delay.

The defendant suffered significant actual prejudice, including two suicide attempts during the delay period.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.