Michael J. Venturi

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the breath samples were not taken “as soon as practicable,” pointing to alleged unexplained delays both before the Approved Screening Device demand and between the two breathalyzer samples.

The court held that the initial 12‑minute period was not raised at trial and could not be relied upon as a new ground of appeal.

Applying the governing principles from appellate jurisprudence, the court concluded that the trial judge properly assessed the entire chain of events and reasonably found the police conduct prompt and reasonable.

The unexplained interval between the two samples did not render the testing process non‑compliant with the statutory requirement.

The accused applied to exclude evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant executed at his residence in a child pornography investigation.

He argued the Information to Obtain contained stale information, lacked full, frank and fair disclosure, and failed to provide sufficient technical evidence supporting reasonable grounds.

The court reviewed the authorization under the Garofoli framework and concluded the issuing justice had sufficient grounds to issue the warrant, relying on the officer’s observations of child pornography files associated with the IP address and explanatory evidence regarding file sharing networks and forensic recovery.

The court held the information was adequate and not misleading, and that reasonable grounds existed to believe evidence would be found.

In the alternative, the court found the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and crucial to the prosecution.