Nancy S. Kastner

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, a 57-year-old dentist and artistic director of a Polish-Canadian children's dance troupe, was charged with possessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that four photographs taken by the accused during a dance competition trip to Montreal depicted children under 18 years of age with their sexual organs or anal regions exposed as the dominant characteristic, for a sexual purpose.

The accused claimed the photographs were innocent documentation of group activities and horseplay.

The court found that the Crown established all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected the accused's evidence as lacking credibility and logical consistency.

The court also found that the statutory defences under section 163.1(6) did not apply.

The accused was convicted.

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.