Michael Malleson

The accused was charged with two counts under s. 253(1) of the Criminal Code: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown's case relied on the accused's involvement in a motor vehicle collision with a police officer's vehicle, physical observations of impairment, and a toxicology report projecting the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the incident.

The defence challenged the reliability of the toxicology report's assumptions, particularly regarding the timing of the incident and the possibility of bolus drinking.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the essential factual underpinnings of the toxicology report beyond a reasonable doubt and that the physical evidence of impairment was insufficient to meet the threshold for conviction.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was convicted of trafficking in cocaine (three counts) and trafficking in a firearm by offer.

The defence challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory three-year minimum sentence under Section 99(2) of the Criminal Code as cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found that while the three-year minimum was not grossly disproportionate to the accused's particular circumstances, it would be grossly disproportionate in reasonable hypothetical cases involving young first offenders with minimal culpability.

The court declared Section 99(2)(a) invalid and imposed a total sentence of two years less one day plus three years probation.

The accused was charged with theft under $5,000 arising from an incident at a Walmart store where she allegedly left the store with unpaid merchandise.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of a loss prevention officer who observed the accused placing items into her shopping cart and then leaving without paying for them.

The accused testified that she was distracted by young children and urgent medical appointments, and that unpaid items had been placed in the cart by her children or had become concealed beneath a baby car seat.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's intent to steal and dismissed the charge.

A Charter application alleging breach of section 7 rights due to lost surveillance video was also dismissed.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand for a breath sample under s. 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

A police officer stopped the accused for speeding and, observing signs of impairment, requested a roadside breath sample using an approved screening device (ASD).

The accused made six attempts to provide a sample, each resulting in an error code indicating an insufficient sample.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally failed to provide a proper sample.

The defence argued the accused was suffering from a chest cold and cough that prevented him from providing an adequate sample, and that he was attempting to comply with the officer's instructions.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's intent to fail and acquitted him.