Murray H. Shore

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

He argued that the second information, which added an impaired driving charge, was a nullity because the swearing officer relied solely on a presumption of good faith from the Crown's request rather than objective facts.

The Superior Court found that while the officer inadvertently swore a false oath, binding jurisprudence dictates the information is not a nullity.

Although the practice breached section 7 of the Charter and warranted a stay of the impaired driving charge, the remedy was moot as the appellant had been acquitted of that charge at trial.

The appeal against the over 80 conviction was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the accused was unlawfully arrested without reasonable and probable grounds, subjected to unlawful breath and blood demands, and that his privacy interests were violated during hospital detention.

The court also found that the search warrant used to seize the blood sample was invalid due to material non-disclosure and misleading information in the Information to Obtain.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused, a chartered accountant, pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 for his role in a large-scale tax evasion scheme involving false personal income tax returns and fraudulent charitable donation receipts.

Over six years (2003-2008), the accused prepared 487 false returns for numerous clients, resulting in false deduction claims totalling $3,674,000 and unpaid taxes of $1,045,111.21.

The accused received approximately $94,000 in compensation.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day, while the Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three to five years.

The court imposed a two-year penitentiary sentence with a $100,000 fine.