Nathalie Castonguay

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The police observed the accused driving erratically and running red lights.

After failing a roadside screening device, the accused provided breath samples at the police station, but the first sample was taken outside the two-hour presumption period.

The Crown relied on expert toxicologist evidence to extrapolate the blood alcohol concentration back to the time of driving.

The court accepted the expert evidence, finding no evidence of bolus drinking, and convicted the accused of the over 80 charge.

However, the court acquitted the accused of impaired driving, finding the physical indicia of impairment insufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of a disabled vehicle and subsequently failed a roadside screening device test.

He was arrested and provided breath samples at the police station that were over the legal limit.

At trial, the accused challenged the admissibility of the breath readings, arguing they were not taken 'as soon as practicable'.

The court found 23 minutes of unexplained delay by police, which compromised the presumption of identity under s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

Without the breath readings, the Crown could not prove the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the offence.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault, one count of uttering a threat, and ten counts of mischief following an altercation on New Year's Eve 2016 in Petawawa, Ontario.

The accused met the complainant through an online dating website and was invited to his residence.

After attending a party at a third party's residence where the accused felt uncomfortable, tensions escalated.

The accused was found guilty of one assault count, nine mischief counts, and acquitted of one assault count, the uttering threat count, and one mischief count.

The court found the accused's evidence unreliable due to alcohol consumption and determined that her actions demonstrated intentional property damage during a rampage through the complainant's residence.

The accused was charged with mischief for wilfully damaging a window at the residence of her former common-law partner on the Pikwakanagan Reserve.

The Crown alleged the damage occurred during a confrontation when the accused arrived to drop off their infant child.

The accused testified she did not intend to damage the window and did not see it break.

The court applied the W.D. credibility analysis and found the accused's evidence not credible and unable to raise a reasonable doubt.

Based on circumstantial evidence and the timing of events, the court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of mischief.