Michel R. Labelle

The accused was charged with impaired driving by drug following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown's evidence established clear indicia of impairment through observations by witnesses and a Drug Recognition Evaluator.

Toxicological analysis detected multiple substances in the accused's urine, including prescribed medications (clonazepam, bupropion, quetiapine, venlafaxine) and an over-the-counter cough suppressant (dextromethorphan).

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea—specifically, whether she knew or was reckless to the fact that her medications alone or in combination could cause impairment.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's awareness of the impairing effects and acquitted her of the charge.

The accused, a long-haul truck driver, was found seated in the driver's seat of his idling tractor-trailer at 1:45 AM after an evening of drinking.

He was arrested for care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and for having more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The Crown relied on the rebuttable presumption under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code that occupying the driver's seat creates a presumption of care and control.

The accused testified he had no intention to drive, had parked the vehicle for the night, and was merely eating chicken wings while waiting to sleep.

The court found the accused rebutted the presumption and that there was no realistic risk of danger, resulting in acquittal on both charges.

A child protection proceeding involving four children with proceedings in two different jurisdictions.

The applicant society sought to transfer the matter from Kapuskasing to Woodstock, while the respondent mother sought interim custody of the children.

The court applied the "preponderance of convenience" test under section 48(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, considering the best interests of the children.

The court found that the matter should remain in Kapuskasing jurisdiction and granted interim custody to the respondent mother subject to supervision and conditions.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of her truck in a ditch with the engine running and her hands on the steering wheel.

The accused claimed she entered the vehicle only to charge her cell phone after waiting approximately six hours for a friend to help extract the vehicle from the ditch.

The court found the accused's account lacked credibility and determined that she failed to rebut the statutory presumption of care and control under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court also found that even if the presumption had been rebutted, the Crown proved actual care and control beyond a reasonable doubt based on the realistic risk of danger.

The Crown appealed a not guilty verdict in a Highway Traffic Act charge of driving while handling a handheld device.

The trial Justice of the Peace acquitted the defendant on the basis that the Crown failed to prove that the vehicle was a "motor vehicle" and the road was a "highway" as defined by the Highway Traffic Act, because the Crown's witness did not use the specific phrase "as defined by the Highway Traffic Act." The appellate court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the Crown's evidence was sufficient and that witnesses need not recite statutory definitions verbatim.

The court applied principles of judicial notice and the ordinary meaning of terms.