Michael Perlin

The accused was charged with failing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device contrary to section 320.15 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on video evidence and police testimony to establish that the accused was lawfully arrested for unauthorized license plates, detected an odour of alcohol, and refused to provide a breath sample.

The defence raised three Charter breaches: an unreasonable search when officers opened the vehicle door; an arbitrary detention when officers arrested the accused without reasonable grounds for the provincial offence; and a breach of the right to counsel when the accused was held for nearly two hours at the roadside without access to legal counsel.

The court found all three Charter breaches established and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and uttering death threats against a complainant with whom he had a relationship beginning when she was 16 and he was 21.

The trial turned on credibility and the application of the W.(D.) framework.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, while the accused's evidence was inconsistent and improbable.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault on June 3, 2024 (when the complainant was intoxicated and did not consent), assault on April 23, 2024 (involving squeezing the complainant's abdomen and throat while she was pregnant), and uttering death threats on April 23, 2024 (stating the complainant and baby would die).

The court acquitted on the February 29, 2024 sexual assault allegation due to insufficient reliability of evidence given the complainant's extreme intoxication.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude breath sample evidence, alleging multiple breaches of his rights including: (1) arrest and approved instrument demand without reasonable grounds; (2) delayed notification of the right to counsel; (3) failure to facilitate access to counsel at the roadside and counsel of choice at the station; and (4) video recording of cell toilet use.

The court found one Charter breach—a nine-minute delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel—but admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would harm the administration of justice more than admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with assault arising from an incident in which he pushed the property owner (his landlord) out of his rental unit.

The landlord attended the property with plumbers to investigate a water leak.

The accused claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code.

While the court found that the accused had peaceable possession of the property and acted with a defensive purpose, it concluded that the force used was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The threat posed by the landlord was negligible, and the accused should have attempted verbal communication before resorting to physical force.

The court found the accused guilty of assault.