Neil L. Kozloff

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and operate over 80 following an incident on November 3, 2013.

The Crown established that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol and that his blood alcohol concentration substantially exceeded the legal limit of 80 mg/100mL.

The defence conceded these facts but argued the defendant lacked the necessary mens rea, claiming he was disabled through no fault of his own from appreciating that he was impaired or that his BAC exceeded the legal limit due to an interaction between Tylenol 3 medication and alcohol.

The court rejected this defence, finding that the defendant's impairment resulted from voluntary consumption of alcohol and that he knew or ought to have known of the risks.

The court convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on breath sample evidence obtained at the police station.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the officer failed to make a valid demand for the approved screening device immediately upon forming reasonable suspicion, unlawfully detained the accused at the roadside without informing him of his detention or reasons therefor, and failed to advise the accused of his right to counsel.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in blood causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, arising from a fatal head-on collision on Highway 17.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from three Ontario Provincial Police collision reconstruction officers: Constable Kelly (Level 3 Technical Traffic Collision Investigator), Constable Hewitt (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist), and Constable Kern (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist and regional lead).

The defence objected on grounds of bias, lack of independence, partiality, and lack of competence.

The court conducted an extensive voir dire on the admissibility of expert evidence, examining the independence, objectivity, and qualifications of each officer.

A police constable was charged with assault causing bodily harm after forcibly taking an intoxicated man to the ground during an arrest for public intoxication.

The Crown alleged excessive use of force.

The court found the arrest was lawful under the Liquor Licence Act and that the force used was necessary and not excessive.

The officer believed the arrestee was about to strike his partner and pulled him away, resulting in an unintended fall.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused, a police constable charged with assault causing bodily harm, brought a motion for an order requiring the Crown to disclose occurrence reports relating to police investigations of the complainant.

The accused sought evidence of the complainant's history of intoxication, violence, and resistance to arrest to support a defence of justified use of force during arrest.

The court found that the occurrence reports constituted first-party disclosure obligations under the Crown's duty to disclose, applying the principles from R. v. McNeil.

The court ordered the Crown to examine sealed packages from the police services and review all occurrence reports for potentially relevant information relating to the complainant's past conduct.