Michael McArthur

The Tribunal previously found that the appellant licensee contravened the Liquor Licence Act by over-serving two patrons on separate occasions, one of whom subsequently died of hypothermia after leaving the premises.

Following written submissions on sanction, the Tribunal ordered a 40-day suspension of the appellant's liquor licence, emphasizing the seriousness of the contraventions, the tragic outcome, the repetition of the offence within five days, and the lack of evidence regarding remedial measures taken by the licensee.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the Appellant's liquor licence for 60 days, alleging the establishment served liquor to two patrons who were or appeared intoxicated and permitted drunkenness.

One patron was later found dead from hypothermia, and the other was found unconscious in a snowbank.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed extensive witness testimony, video evidence, and expert toxicology reports.

The Tribunal found that both patrons were served alcohol while they were or appeared to be intoxicated, and that the establishment failed to properly monitor them, thereby permitting drunkenness.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellant contravened the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, and invited submissions on penalty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over .08 following a motor vehicle accident.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude a roadside statement admitting he was the driver on the basis that the statement was compelled under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, thereby violating his right against self-incrimination under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the accused had a statutory duty to report the accident, his evidence did not establish that he believed he was legally compelled to make the statement.

Rather, the accused was motivated by moral responsibility and a sense of honour.

The statement was admitted into evidence, and the accused was found guilty of driving over .08.

The accused was arrested for impaired driving at a RIDE check and taken to a neighbouring police station because the arresting detachment lacked an on-duty breath technician.

At the station, the breath technician had to process another suspect simultaneously, resulting in a 57-minute delay between the accused's first and second breath samples.

The court found that the police acted reasonably in both setting up the RIDE check without a technician and in overlapping the sampling procedures for the two suspects.

The breath samples were deemed to have been taken as soon as practicable, and the accused was found guilty.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim for adverse possession.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the third requirement for adverse possession—effective exclusion of the true owner—applies even in cases of mutual mistake and was not met on the facts.

The appeal was dismissed, but the trial costs award was reduced from full indemnity to substantial indemnity.

A young offender, aged 17 at the time of the offences, was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and one count of sexual assault following a brutal home invasion.

The offender was sentenced as an adult pursuant to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of eight years for the attempted murder counts and five years for the sexual assault count, with enhanced presentence custody credit of 1.5 to 1 (36 months total).

The court balanced adult sentencing principles with youth criminal justice considerations, emphasizing rehabilitation while addressing denunciation and deterrence.

Ancillary orders included SOIRA registration, DNA order, firearms prohibition, and communication prohibition with victims.

The appellant appealed his convictions under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing his modified 1976 Chevrolet pick-up truck was exempt as a 'self-propelled implement of husbandry'.

The vehicle had been modified with a diesel engine, four-wheel drive, snow tires, and a heavy hitch for towing irrigation equipment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the modifications did not objectively transform the essential character or function of the vehicle for a specific use in farming, but merely made it better suited for general farm use.

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge's decision that overturned the accused's conviction for driving 'over 80'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction.

The Court held that the appeal judge erred in finding that an officer could not form the requisite suspicion for a roadside breath demand under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code based on the smell of alcohol on a driver's breath, affirming R. v. Lindsay.

Furthermore, the trial judge correctly applied the W.D. test by concluding that the accused's 'evidence to the contrary' did not raise a reasonable doubt.