Nancy S. Kastner

The applicant challenged his detention in police cells following the completion of breath tests in an impaired driving investigation.

The court found a breach of section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding arbitrary detention, specifically during the period after 5:00 a.m. when the final officer-in-charge failed to promptly assess the prisoner in accordance with police directives and the Criminal Code.

However, the court determined that the breath sample evidence was not obtained in a manner that infringed Charter rights, as the breach occurred several hours after the evidence was lawfully obtained.

The connection between the evidence and the breach was found to be too remote and tenuous.

The breath sample results were admitted into evidence.

The defendant was charged with five Criminal Code offences involving sexual misconduct against his stepson (A.B.) and biological son (C.D.) over a period spanning 1995-2010.

The Crown alleged sexual interference and sexual assault against both complainants.

The trial proceeded on credibility and reliability of the two complainants' evidence, as the defendant did not testify.

The court found the defendant guilty of sexual assault against A.B. (Count 3) but acquitted on the sexual interference charges against both complainants.

The court found the defendant guilty of simple assault (not sexual assault) against C.D., finding reasonable doubt as to the sexual nature of the contact.

The court rejected the Crown's similar fact evidence application and found no collusion between the complainants despite opportunity for such.

The defendant was charged with failure to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

A police officer observed the defendant seated in the driver's seat of a vehicle in a bar parking lot, heard the engine running, and formed reasonable suspicion that the defendant had alcohol in his body and was in care or control of the vehicle.

The officer made a lawful approved screening device demand.

The defendant refused to comply, claiming he had an ignition interlock device installed in his vehicle and was waiting for a designated driver.

The court found the demand was lawful, the refusal was unequivocal and wilful, and the defendant had no reasonable excuse for non-compliance.

The defendant was convicted.

The Crown charged Wal-Mart Canada Corp. with failing to ensure that measures and procedures prescribed by regulation were carried out at a workplace, specifically that the floor be kept free of obstructions and hazards.

A maintenance worker tripped over an empty pallet left on the floor in the receiving area and fell, striking his head.

The worker died two weeks later, though the Crown conceded it could not prove causation.

The court found that the empty pallet constituted an obstruction and hazard under the applicable regulation.

While Wal-Mart had training programs, policies, and safety procedures in place, the court found the defendant failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities, primarily due to the absence of safety sweep logs for the receiving area and insufficient evidence of implementation of safety procedures in that specific location.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following his arrest on December 11, 2012.

The Crown alleged the accused drove a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and subsequently refused to comply with breath demands made by two police officers.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and breath demands, alleging violations of Charter sections 8 and 9.

The court found the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and make the initial breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, including the accused's flight from police, strong odour of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and staggering.

The court found the accused guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample but acquitted him of impaired driving, finding the evidence of impairment, while suspicious, did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A courier company appealed a conviction for parking a vehicle in a designated accessible parking space without displaying a valid permit.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was "standing" rather than "parked" and that the common law exception for loading and unloading merchandise applied.

The court upheld the conviction, finding that the by-law clearly prohibited parking, standing, or leaving unauthorized vehicles in accessible spaces, and that the appellant's vehicle was left unattended for an unreasonable period while the driver completed a delivery to an upper floor of a building.

The court rejected arguments based on common law exceptions and statutory interpretation, emphasizing the remedial purpose of accessibility legislation.

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. was charged with two counts of transporting animals in a manner likely to cause undue suffering due to undue exposure to weather, contrary to section 143(1)(d) of the Health of Animals Regulations and section 65(1) of the Health of Animals Act.

Count 7 involved the transportation of 9,576 broiler chickens on December 30-31, 2008, with 711 birds (7.4%) found dead on arrival.

Count 34 involved the transportation of 10,944 spent hens on February 23, 2009, with 1,181 birds (10.8%) found dead on arrival.

The Crown alleged that inadequate protection from cold and wet weather conditions caused undue suffering and death.

The defendant argued it followed standard operating procedures and industry practices.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, determining that the defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the prohibited acts, particularly through failures in monitoring, training, and adherence to industry guidelines.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The charges arose from a motor vehicle collision on Steeles Avenue and Airport Road in Brampton on September 19, 2010.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification by the victim of the collision, observations of the accused's condition by police officers, and breath analysis results.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) regarding the timing of the right to counsel but excluded only statements made during the breach period.

The breath analysis evidence was admitted.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown established that the accused was observed driving at excessive speeds on Highway 410, making abrupt lane changes without signalling, and displaying delayed reaction time to police emergency signals.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples showing readings well in excess of the legal limit.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breath evidence on the basis of a breach of the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that language barriers prevented meaningful access to legal advice.

The court found a technical breach of the Charter right to counsel but admitted the breath evidence under section 24(2), finding that the integrity of the administration of justice would not be compromised by admission.

The court convicted the accused on both counts.