2 total
The defendant was acquitted of refusing a breath sample because his severe anxiety negated the requisite intent.
The defendant was charged with refusing to provide an approved screening device (ASD) sample during a RIDE program stop.
The Crown was required to prove a valid demand, failure to comply, and an intention to refuse.
The court found that while the defendant failed to provide a proper breath sample after numerous attempts, he had not formed the requisite intention to refuse.
The defendant's mental health condition, including anxiety, nervousness, and paranoia stemming from a traumatic experience in 2010, rendered his nervousness almost disabling.
The court acquitted the defendant, finding he had raised a reasonable doubt as to his intention to evade providing a proper sample.
The judgment also addresses systemic concerns regarding defence counsel competence and the integrity of the adversarial system.
Ex parte order vesting title set aside under Rule 37.14(1)(a); underlying procedural order affirmed.
The applicants moved to set aside two orders regarding their claimed beneficial interest in their son and daughter-in-law's matrimonial home.
The first order converted their application into an action, and the second ex parte order vested exclusive title in the daughter-in-law after the applicants failed to comply with the first order's filing deadlines.
The Divisional Court set aside the ex parte order under Rule 37.14(1)(a) because the applicants had indicated an intention to appeal, but affirmed the initial order as the motion to set it aside was not brought forthwith.
