Michael Raymond Holme

The accused was charged with threatening to cause bodily harm contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code.

After multiple adjournments, the accused's counsel advised on September 21, 2018 that the accused was willing to enter into a s. 810 peace bond recognizance, and the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge upon execution.

However, when the matter returned to court, the accused refused to sign the recognizance, claiming he had never agreed to do so and his counsel lacked instructions.

The court was asked to determine the appropriate remedy for the accused's refusal to sign.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a suitable sample of breath into an approved screening device on December 12, 2010.

The Crown's case relied on two police officers with significantly divergent observations regarding the accused's sobriety and the sobriety of a female passenger.

The trial judge found material inconsistencies between the officers' evidence, particularly regarding whether alcohol was detected on the accused's breath and whether the female passenger was impaired.

These inconsistencies created reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the investigation.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following an incident in the early morning hours of July 27, 2011.

The accused admitted to being impaired and having a blood alcohol reading of 140 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

However, the accused denied having care and control of the vehicle, claiming he was merely sitting in the driver's seat to smoke a cigarette.

The accused also brought a Charter challenge under sections 7 and 24, alleging that police negligence in obtaining and preserving CCTV footage from a Tim Hortons location constituted a breach of his right to make full answer and defence.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, rejecting his credibility and finding that he had care and control of the vehicle.

The court also dismissed the Charter motion, finding that the police conduct did not constitute unacceptable negligence and that any prejudice to the accused's fair trial rights was not sufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown presented evidence from three witnesses and a toxicologist report.

The accused raised two Charter issues: an arbitrary detention claim under section 9 and a breach of the right to counsel of choice under section 10(b).

The court found the detention was authorized under the Highway Traffic Act despite the officer's primary suspicion regarding break-ins.

However, the court found a breach of section 10(b) when police failed to provide reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of choice, instead pressuring the accused to choose between duty counsel or no counsel.

Applying the section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence, resulting in an acquittal.