4 total
Accused acquitted of refusing a DRE demand as gross impairment rendered him unable to comply.
This case addresses whether the accused, Asmond Hazzard, failed or refused to comply with a demand for a Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE).
The court examined two issues: whether the accused understood the demand and whether his actions constituted a failure or refusal to comply.
The accused was found in care and control of a motor vehicle and exhibited confusion and disorientation throughout his interaction with police and the DRE officer.
The court found that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused grasped the demand, nor that he failed or refused to comply, concluding that his inability to cooperate was due to gross impairment rather than unwillingness.
An acquittal was entered.
A young person was sentenced to two and a half years for serious offences including sexual trafficking and firearms possession, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.
Y.A., a young person, was sentenced for serious offences including sexual trafficking, assault, and illegal firearm possession.
The court applied the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration, while acknowledging diminished moral blameworthiness for young persons.
The court considered aggravating factors such as the vicious nature of the assaults and the accused's criminal record, and mitigating factors including the plea of guilt and efforts towards rehabilitation.
The Crown sought a maximum 3-year custodial sentence, while the Defence sought 2 years with 1.5:1 pre-sentence custody credit.
The court imposed a sentence of 2 years and 180 days, with 1.5:1 credit for 218 days of pre-sentence custody, resulting in 583 days further to serve (2/3 in custody, 1/3 in community), along with ancillary orders.
Accused found guilty of over 80 after failing to establish post-driving consumption defence.
The accused was involved in a single motor vehicle collision and subsequently consumed vodka in a nearby backhoe before police arrived.
He provided breath samples of 216 and 206 mg/100ml and raised the post-driving consumption defence under s. 320.14(5) of the Criminal Code.
The court rejected the defence, finding that a reasonable person leaving a severe accident scene would expect to provide a breath sample, and the amount of alcohol the accused claimed to have consumed was insufficient to account for his high breath readings.
The accused was acquitted of impaired driving but found guilty of operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.
The accused was convicted of breaching a non-contact order after the court interpreted 'frequents'.
The accused, Brandon Boise, was charged with violating conditions of an order, specifically attending a property frequented by Jessica Carter and contacting children.
The court assessed witness credibility, including an alibi defense presented by the accused's father, Ronald Boise.
The judgment provides a detailed interpretation of the term "frequents" in the context of non-contact orders, establishing seven guiding principles.
The court found the alibi unreliable and determined that the property was indeed frequented by the complainant.
Boise was acquitted of the charge related to contacting children due to lack of evidence but found guilty of two counts of violating the attendance conditions at the frequented location.
