2 total
The accused was found guilty of refusing an approved screening device demand following a motor vehicle collision.
The accused was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand made by a peace officer pursuant to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.
The Crown alleged that the accused refused to provide a breath sample at the roadside following a motor vehicle collision.
The accused raised two defences: first, that his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter was violated; and second, that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that he had operated the motor vehicle within the preceding three hours.
The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the accused's proximity to the vehicle and conflicting statements from his wife.
The court also found that the demand was made promptly and that the refusal occurred within the "forthwith" timeframe, meaning the accused's Charter rights were not engaged.
The accused was found guilty.
The accused was acquitted of assault and threatening charges due to reasonable doubt raised by the complainant's inconsistent testimony.
The accused was charged with assault and two counts of threatening following an altercation with his sister at the family home.
The complainant alleged that after an argument over a cell phone, the accused struck her and pushed her down the stairs.
The accused testified that his sister was the aggressor, striking their mother, and that he only separated them without striking anyone.
The court found serious discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, including her failure to mention being pushed down stairs to police and inconsistencies regarding an alleged arranged marriage.
The photographic evidence showed more serious injuries to the accused and his mother than to the complainant, supporting the defence narrative.
The court acquitted the accused of all charges.
