Michael G. March

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found asleep in the passenger seat of a vehicle in a ditch.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results obtained more than two hours after the alleged offence, thereby losing the statutory presumption of identity.

The Crown attempted to rely on expert opinion evidence to extrapolate the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the alleged offence.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish the factual assumptions underlying the expert opinion and rejected the Crown's invitation to perform retrograde extrapolation calculations.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused, a 57-year-old retired Master Warrant Officer of the Canadian Forces, pleaded guilty to sexual touching of his 14-year-old step-granddaughter contrary to section 151(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved digital penetration and occurred during a snow day at the accused's residence.

The court imposed a sentence of seven months imprisonment followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 10-year SOIRA order, and a five-year section 161 order.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and the breach of trust against the accused's early guilty plea, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and positive sexual behaviour assessment indicating low risk of reoffence.

The defence brought a Dawson application seeking leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) at the accused's preliminary inquiry.

The defence sought to question the officer on four areas, including the confidential informant's criminal record, the informant's inability to name the suspect, the outcome of prior police involvement at the residence, and any exchange with the authorizing Justice of the Peace.

The court granted the application, finding that the proposed cross-examination was relevant, material, and would not jeopardize confidential informant privilege.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the respondent following his conviction for sexual touching of a 13-year-old girl contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the respondent constituted a threat to the physical and mental wellbeing of others based on a pattern of repetitive sexual behaviour showing a failure to restrain and a likelihood to inflict severe psychological damage, as well as a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his conduct.

The court rejected arguments for lesser measures, finding that community-based supervision and treatment could not adequately protect the public.

The respondent was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to indeterminate detention in a penitentiary.

The accused was charged with extortion and sexual assault.

The primary issue was whether the complainant, a young woman with intellectual disabilities, properly identified the accused as the person who extorted her into sending nude photographs and subsequently sexually assaulted her at a marina.

The Crown's case rested entirely on identification evidence.

The accused denied ever meeting the complainant or engaging in any of the alleged conduct.

The court found the complainant's identification credible and reliable, distinguishing this case from typical eyewitness identification cases because the complainant had a photograph of the accused before meeting him in person.

The court rejected the accused's denials as implausible and found him guilty of both counts.

The accused were arrested based on a confidential informant tip indicating they possessed cocaine and oxycodone.

The Crown charged Adams with possession of oxycodone contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Harkness with possession for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in oxycodone.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and subsequent searches on Charter grounds.

The court found that the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, being based on a tip that spoke only of "possibilities" rather than credibly based probability.

The court also found violations of the right to counsel and unreasonable searches of the accused's person and cell phone.

All evidence obtained as a result of these violations was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code following an incident on April 3, 2017.

The accused and the complainant were in a former intimate relationship and were engaged in a custody dispute over their seven-year-old son.

During an access visit, a heated argument arose regarding the child's school behaviour.

When the complainant's daughter intervened, the accused applied force to the complainant's chest with his fingertips, causing her to step back.

The accused claimed he made only a waving gesture to move past the complainant.

The court found the accused guilty of assault, characterizing it as technical and of an exceedingly minor nature, but nonetheless constituting the intentional application of force without consent.

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

The Crown's case relied on observations from truck stop employees who reported a suspected impaired driver, police observations of the accused's vehicle and physical condition, and breath analysis results.

The defence challenged the reliability of the approved screening device test on Charter grounds, arguing the officer failed to consider the possibility of mouth alcohol contamination.

The court found no Charter breach, as the officer reasonably concluded no evidence suggested recent alcohol consumption within 15 minutes of the test.

The court convicted the accused on both counts based on the totality of evidence demonstrating impairment.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a 93-year-old resident of a long-term care facility between October 31, 2012 and October 7, 2015.

The complainant did not testify due to advanced age and frail health.

The Crown sought to introduce hearsay statements made by the complainant to facility staff on October 5-6, 2015 and a videotaped statement to police on October 7, 2015.

The trial judge conducted a blended voir dire/trial to determine the admissibility of these out-of-court statements under the reliability criterion established in R. v. Khelawon and R. v. Youvarajah.

The court found that none of the statements met the threshold reliability test due to significant concerns about the complainant's mental capacity, confusion, and lack of adequate substitute for cross-examination.