N. J. Spies

The accused was stopped for speeding.

The police officer smelled burnt marijuana and questioned the accused about cannabis, eventually searching the accused's vehicle and satchel under the Cannabis Control Act, finding cocaine.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) rights.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the search, rendering it unlawful under s. 8, and that there was an unreasonable delay in providing access to counsel under s. 10(b).

The court also found the officer gave misleading testimony.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) and dismissed the charge.

The appellants appealed an Assessment Officer's $1,000 costs award to the respondents following the discontinuance of an assessment action.

The appellants had discontinued the assessment to pursue a breach of trust claim in Small Claims Court regarding a retainer.

The Superior Court set aside the costs award, finding serious procedural unfairness because the appellants were ambushed with a Bill of Costs at the hearing, the Notice of Appointment was served out of time, and the costs claimed improperly included Small Claims Court attendances.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The trial judge had ruled that the breath samples were not taken “as soon as practicable” under s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and concluded that the Crown could not rely on breath test results or a toxicologist’s report to prove the offence.

On appeal, the court held that failure to establish the “as soon as practicable” requirement only deprives the Crown of the statutory presumption of identity and does not render breath evidence or expert toxicology evidence inadmissible absent a Charter application.

The court further held that the trial judge had no obligation to raise a potential Charter breach on his own motion where the accused was represented and no timely Charter application was brought.

Because the evidence clearly established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the acquittal was quashed and a conviction substituted.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and driving 'over 80' on the ground that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

At trial, the appellant and the arresting officer provided conflicting testimony regarding the appellant's driving and signs of impairment, which formed the basis of a Charter application challenging the breath demand.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter application and convicted the appellant without explaining how he resolved the contradictory evidence or why he preferred the officer's testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons manifestly insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.