M. Mackett

The applicant, an Indigenous man, sought a review of a detention order made by a Justice of the Peace following charges of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and reckless discharge of a firearm.

The incident occurred during a mental health crisis while the applicant was severely intoxicated.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Justice of the Peace erred in law by failing to consider Gladue factors and the applicant's personal circumstances when detaining him under the tertiary ground.

The court concluded that the proposed release plan, which included medical treatment and a surety, would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, and ordered the applicant's release.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood following a roadside stop on June 22, 2011.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the admissibility of breath test evidence and alleging breaches of her rights.

The court found no breach of sections 7 or 11(d) regarding access to the Intoxilyzer 8000C, but found a breach of section 9 (arbitrary detention) due to over-holding for approximately 7 hours after breath tests were completed.

The court admitted the breath test evidence and found the accused guilty of the over 80 charge.

The impaired charge was conditionally stayed.

A nominal fine of $100 with enhanced credit for time served and a one-year driving prohibition were imposed as remedy for the section 9 breach.

The defendant was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code after being pulled over on Highway 401 on January 28, 2012.

The defendant claimed he was attempting to follow the officer's instructions and never refused to provide a sample.

The Crown proved that the defendant made multiple failed attempts to provide a suitable breath sample and ultimately stated "I will not blow." The court found the defendant guilty, holding that the defendant both failed and unequivocally refused to provide a suitable roadside-screening sample.

The court also addressed the defence argument regarding the ASD calibration issue, finding that where there is a categorical refusal to provide a breath sample, the Crown need not establish that the approved screening device was tested and ready to accept a sample.

The accused was charged with driving while the quantity of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit.

The defence raised Charter violations regarding the roadside screening demand, arguing that the officer failed to comply with the "forthwith" requirement under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, failed to consider residual mouth alcohol, failed to verify calibration of the screening device, and failed to inform the accused of his rights to counsel.

The court found no Charter violations in the unique context of the case, which involved concurrent safety concerns on the Gardiner Expressway and railway tracks.

The court found the accused guilty.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample on December 29, 2010.

The Crown alleged that a police officer made a lawful demand for a breath sample under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, which the accused refused.

The key issues were whether the Crown must prove actual care or control of the vehicle to establish a valid demand, whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the demand, and whether the accused possessed the necessary mens rea to commit the offence.

The court found that following 2008 amendments to section 254(2), the officer's reasonable suspicion of care or control is sufficient, not proof of actual care or control.

The officer had reasonable suspicion based on the tow truck driver's identification and the circumstances.

The accused clearly understood the demand and intentionally refused to comply.

The accused was found guilty.