Nicolas Xynnis

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following a motor vehicle accident at a construction site intersection.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the driver.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony identifying the accused as the driver based on distinctive thick black-framed glasses.

The defence argued the accused's friend was the driver.

The court found conflicting evidence between the eyewitness account and the consistent testimony of both the accused and his friend, resulting in reasonable doubt as to identity.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with alcohol in her body contrary to section 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically challenging the timing of the approved screening device demand and the delay in providing the right to counsel.

The court found no breach of Charter rights, holding that the officer's investigative steps were reasonable and compliant with the immediacy requirements of section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded on the merits following dismissal of the Charter application.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused argued that he should be acquitted based on the defence of officially induced error, claiming that a police officer misinformed him about the consequences of refusing the breath demand.

The court rejected this defence, finding that the accused failed to establish the prerequisites for the excuse and that his evidence was unreliable and internally inconsistent.

The court convicted the accused.