ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
GIANNI CASCHERA
Before Justice B.C. Oldham
Heard on March 2, 2026, April 9, 2026 and May 26, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 23, 2026
Diana DeNovellis................................................................................ counsel for the Crown
David Lakie …..……………………………counsel for the defendant Gianni Caschera
OLDHAM J.:
1Gianni Caschera stands charged with one count of operation of a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs contrary to section 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (the “Code”).
2The Court heard evidence from four witnesses for the Crown. Mr. Caschera testified in his defence.
3The Crown’s first witness was James Wells, a civilian driving north on Highway 69 between Gravenhurst and Walkers Point between 9:00 pm and 11:00 pm on June 26, 2025. Mr. Wells made observations of a motor vehicle which he described as driving radically – travelling at inconsistent speeds and crossing the double line on both sides of the road. He called 911 to report the license plate and provide a vehicle description. He did not make any observations of the occupants of the motor vehicle.
4The Court also heard from two police officers Maggie Peddie from the Anishinabek Police Service (“APS”) and Provincial Constable (“PC”) Peter Hutchinson from the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”).
5The APS and OPP often work together in the Parry Sound District. PC Peddie was aware of the traffic complaint involving a motor vehicle which originated from the Bracebridge detachment of the OPP earlier that evening. PC Peddie located the motor vehicle just after midnight on June 26, 2025, and initiated the traffic stop. She confirmed that the motor vehicle was registered to Mr. Caschera. PC Peddie testified that she knew Mr. Caschera from other traffic stops and as a vendor at one of the local markets. PC Peddie testified that she had concerns with Mr. Caschera’s ability to operate a motor vehicle after observing him exit onto Bowes Street in Parry sound. She testified that he went on to the shoulder 4 to 6 times before exiting and that he kept his right signal light on well after exiting onto the off ramp. She described his driving speed as inconsistent.
6Upon approach to the driver side of the motor vehicle she observed a male with slow sloppy movements as he reached for the insurance documentation. PC Peddie observed his eyes to be pinpoint, but he was otherwise polite. Mr. Caschera made an utterance that he and the passenger were laughing and talking. She took this to be his explanation for his poor driving behavior. PC Peddie confirmed that there was a passenger in the motor vehicle and that he left on foot when Mr. Caschera’s vehicle was moved to the Walmart parking lot for the Standard Field Sobriety Test (“SFST”). The passenger was never identified.
7PC Hutchinson arrived after PC Peddie had stopped Mr. Caschera and identified him. PC Peddie spoke with PC Hutchinson about her observations and the 911 call. She testified that she was on what she described as the threshold of operation by drugs, but that she handed off to PC Hutchinson as it was not her normal jurisdiction.
8PC Hutchinson testified that he arrived at the motor vehicle stop at 12:07 am on June 27, 2025. After consultation with PC Peddie, he approached the driver side and observed Mr. Caschera to be fumbling for his documents. His movements and speech were slow. He appeared to be sleepy, had restricted eyes and a raspy voice. At 12:13 am PC Hutchinson provided Mr. Caschera with a SFST demand.
9The vehicle was moved to the Walmart parking lot to provide a level paved, lighted location to conduct the SFST. Having detained Mr. Caschera, PC Hutchinson provided Mr. Caschera with his rights to counsel and caution. Mr. Caschera declined the opportunity to speak to a lawyer, and no issues were raised in respect to Mr. Caschera’s Charter rights or any alleged violations.
10PC Hutchinson concluded that Mr. Caschera performed poorly on the SFST and he was arrested for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and read a demand for a Drug Influence Evaluation (“DIE”). Upon arrest, Mr. Caschera was searched incident to arrest and a crack pipe and scales with a white residue were located in his pants pocket. He was transported to the West Parry Sound Detachment for the DIE.
11PC Hutchinson was certified as a Drug Recognition Expert (“DRE”) on August 25, 2024. At the time of this incident PC Hutchinson had been an officer four years and this was his fourth assignment as the DRE. The DIE was commenced at 1:38 am and was completed at 2:15 am. PC Hutchinson concluded that Mr. Caschera was impaired by marijuana and a narcotic analgesic.
12At 2:45 am, PC Hutchinson attended at the West Parry Sound Hospital with Mr. Caschera for a blood draw. The Crown did not file a certificate from a qualified medial practitioner and Counsel for Mr. Caschera submits that without evidence, there is no proof that the sample analysed was that of Mr. Caschera.
13Galiena Tse, a Forensic Scientist from the Centre of Forensic Sciences (“CFS”) provided expert testimony in respect of the Toxicology Report. Cocaine, benzoylecgonine (an inactive breakdown product of cocaine) and buprenorphine were detected in the sample analyzed.
14Mr. Caschera testified and advised the Court that he had used cocaine earlier that day but denied being impaired at the time that he operated his motor vehicle.
Position of the Parties
15Counsel for Mr. Caschera submits that even if the blood sample can be connected to Mr. Caschera there is insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Caschera was impaired at the time that he was operating his motor vehicle. Counsel notes that all of the observations made by PC Peddie and PC Hutchinson are consistent with a driver who was sleep deprived and likely should not be operating a motor vehicle, but not one who was impaired by drugs. This incident occurred after midnight, and Mr. Caschera testified that he only had three to four hours of sleep the day before.
16Counsel notes that the drugs identified by PC Hutchinson, a narcotic analgesic and marijuana are not what was found in the blood sample, raising further doubt with respect to the results of the DIE and allegation of impairment.
17The Crown submits that the observations of Mr. Wells, PC Peddie, PC Hutchinson on both the SFST and the DIE coupled with the toxicology report prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Caschera was impaired by drugs on June 26, 2025 when he was driving his motor vehicle. The Crown submits that the observations of the driving behavior is compelling and support the findings from the SFST and the DIE.
18The Crown relies on R. v. Stellato 1993 CanLII 3375 (ON CA), [1993] O.J. No. 18 (ONCA), 286 aff’d 1994 CanLII 94 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478n (“Stellato”) and reminds the Court that Mr. Caschera need only be impaired to any degree by drugs in order to ground a conviction.
Law and Analysis
19As acknowledged in submissions, the only issue in this case is impairment. Date, identification, operation of a motor vehicle and jurisdiction were all acknowledged.
20The Court of Appeal (“COA”) in Stellato addressed the issue of impairment by considering whether the provision requires observation of driving that represents a marked departure from normal driving behavior and what evidence would satisfy a finding of impairment. The COA confirmed that s.253(a), the relevant provision of the Code at the time, does not require driving observations that represent a marked departure from normal operation and that the provision was silent with respect to a test. Section 320.14(1)(a) of the Code has not been amended to change that pronouncement. In providing direction to trial judges, the COA noted the following at paragraphs 13 and 14:
13 …. Specifically, I agree with Mitchell J.A. in Campbell that the Criminal Code does not prescribe any special test for determining impairment. In the words of Mitchell J.A., impairment is an issue of fact which the trial judge must decide on the evidence and the standard of proof is neither more nor less than that required for any other element of a criminal offence: courts should not apply tests which imply a tolerance that does not exist in law.
14 In all criminal cases the trial judge must be satisfied as to the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can be registered. Accordingly, before convicting an accused of impaired driving, the trial judge must be satisfied that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or a drug. If the evidence of impairment is so frail as to leave the trial judge with a reasonable doubt as to impairment, the accused must be acquitted. If the evidence of impairment establishes any degree of impairment ranging from slight to great, the offence has been made out.
21The evidence of impairment in this case includes the observations of PC Peddie and PC Hutchinson. The observations of Mr. Wells cannot assist the Court as he could not identify who was driving the motor vehicle at the time he made his observations. He did obtain the license plate which was provided to the 911 operator. The motor vehicle was registered to Mr. Caschera and it is therefore likely that he was the one driving it. That, however, is speculation and not evidence of operation by Mr. Caschera that the Court can rely upon. Moreover, Mr. Wells could not confirm the time of his observations which were sometime between 9:00 pm and 11:00 pm.
22The Toxicology Report and the expert evidence of Ms. Tse confirm that Mr. Caschera had cocaine and benzoylecgonine, an inactive breakdown product of cocaine, in his blood. Mr. Caschera acknowledged using cocaine that day. Buprenorphine was also detected in Mr. Caschera’s blood. Ms. Tse confirmed that buprenorphine detected in Mr. Caschera’s blood was at levels within or below ranges associated with therapeutic administration.
23With respect to the cocaine and its effects, Ms. Tse testified that cocaine gives an individual a sense of euphoria, excitation that they would perceive as more energy or alertness. If taken in small amounts, they may feel more alert, but the more they take in, the more it can impair driving in that the driver may make more errors with respect to speed and distance, lane awareness and may exhibit aggressive driving behavior. As the drug wears off the individual may enter a crash phase. During the crash phase the individual may feel fatigue and dysphoria.
24In terms of the active phase of cocaine, Ms. Tse confirmed that the effects of cocaine typically last for 15 to 30 minutes. If taken intravenously, the effects may only be present for 5 to 15 minutes. Cocaine is detectable in the blood for five half-lives, meaning that it can be detected in the blood for up to 7.5 hours. The breakdown product, benzoylecgonine may be detected in the individual’s blood for up to two days after administration.
25Buprenorphine is a narcotic analgesic which can impair an individual’s ability to operate a motor vehicle. Buprenorphine is prescribed for pain or as an opioid suppressant which slows the central nervous system and can have depressant results, such as a slower rate of breathing, heart rate and level of consciousness. If within the prescribed amount, and if administered to a tolerant individual, it should not impair their ability to operate a motor vehicle. Suboxone and methadone treatments are consistent with detection of buprenorphine. Mr. Caschera testified that he was on a suboxone program in June 2025.
26While a forensic scientist can provide an opinion with respect to the impairing qualities of a particular drug, Ms. Tse was clear that she cannot opine on whether Mr. Caschera was impaired at the time that he operated his motor vehicle.
27The only observations of driving behavior are those of PC Peddie. Her observations are frail at best. She described that Mr. Caschera left his right-hand signal on longer than normal but acknowledged that at some point during his exit it was turned off and switched to the left-hand signal as required. She testified that he moved between the lines 4 to 6 times during his exit but did not describe the degree of variation or provide any details or evidence to suggest that it was extreme. Mr. Caschera explained that he was distracted by his engagement with the passenger and acknowledged that his driving may have been impacted as a result. PC Peddie also testified that she observed inconsistent speeds but did not elaborate. Mr. Caschera was exiting the highway and presumably would have been changing speeds.
28Evidence should not be considered in a silo, and the Court must take into consideration all of the evidence. PC Peddie’s observations included her exchange with Mr. Caschera at the roadside. Specifically, he was described as polite. His movements were described as slow and sloppy and PC Peddie made observations of pinpoint eyes. PC Peddie did not describe her observations as being overwhelming, but rather that she was on the ‘threshold’ of considering him to be impaired.
29PC Hutchinson described some notable concerns on the SFST. Specifically, as it relates to Mr. Caschera’s attention, he described him as struggling to stay awake. Of particular note was the fact that he was falling asleep while PC Hutchinson was searching him. PC Hutchinson explained that Mr. Caschera’s body went limp at one point raising concerns that he might fall onto the cruiser.
30PC Hutchinson confirmed that during the DIE, PC Hutchinson observed a continued inability to stay awake. He noted eyelid tremors and difficulties in completing the walk and turn test, although acknowledging an improvement from his performance during the SFST. His pupils remained restricted, and he did poorly on the one-legged stand test. As a result of his observations on the DIE, PC Hutchinson opined that Mr. Caschera was impaired by a narcotic analgesic and cannabis. Cannabis was not present.
31In cross-examination, PC Hutchinson acknowledged that the DIE requires a level of subjective analysis in that the results reported are based upon the DRE’s observations. Although recorded, PC Hutchinson acknowledged that he had not reviewed the video and was unable to comment on the suggestion that the video had numerous blind spots limiting its usefulness. The Crown did not tender the video as evidence and PC Hutchinson acknowledged that the presence of blind spots in the video would impact its usefulness. Without the video recording, there is no ability for the Court to assess the observations noted by the DRE either through cross examination or independently.
32Counsel for Mr. Caschera submits that based upon the toxicology report, and Mr. Caschera’s evidence that he used cocaine earlier that evening, the issue for the court is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Caschera was in a crash phase and therefor impaired to some degree by cocaine, or whether he was simply suffering from exhaustion.
33Mr. Caschera testified that he is an addict and has been using cocaine since he was 13 years of age. On June 26, 2025 he was driving back from Bracebridge to Parry Sound after having attended an AA meeting in Huntsville. He acknowledges using cocaine at approximately 5:00 pm on June 26, 2025. He obtained the cocaine from a friend in Huntsville. He testified that he only used a small line, .2 of a gram of cocaine and that the effects lasted approximately 15 – 20 minutes. He described his usage at this stage of his life as being moderate – 1 to 2 times per week and noted that he had not used the day prior. He attended the AA meeting in Huntsville at 8:00 pm. He picked up his passenger in Bracebridge. They drove to Parry Sound together and Mr. Caschera testified that his driving occurred around 11:30 pm to 12:30 am on June 26, 2025. That leaves a period of at least a few hours in the Huntsville/Bracebridge area which is unaccounted for.
34Mr. Caschera denied being in a crash phase when he was arrested. He acknowledged having experienced crash phases in the past and testified that his crash phase only occurs after substantial use, around 10 grams, and/or after chronic use over a least a day and night. Mr. Caschera testified that he is an owner and operator of a fine dining restaurant. As a business owner he is often working late nights to prepare for the next day. He testified that on June 26, 2025 he had only had three to four hours of sleep the two nights prior and acknowledged that he was very tired.
35It is difficult to accept Mr. Caschera’s evidence at face value. He is a self-described cocaine addict but claims he only used a very small amount of cocaine on this particular day where he is observed to have exhibited behaviours consistent with being in a crash phase. The extent of his drowsiness was pronounced – falling asleep while being searched was notable. Mr. Caschera was cross examined about the amount he claimed to have used and testified that his experience over time has given him the ability to accurately account for what he consumes. He compared it to drinking coffee and being able to accurately supply an amount of sugar without measuring. I accept that Mr. Caschera has a good sense of the quantities that he uses based on his over 43 years of experience with cocaine. I am concerned, however, about under reporting and the reliability of self-reported consumption quantities – particularly for an individual who is an addict.
36The circumstances described by Mr. Caschera are odd. He drives to Huntsville for an AA meeting which he attends even though alcohol is not an issue for him. He testified that he attends AA because he finds that there is more support within that group. He uses cocaine before attending the meeting which begs the question of how he got from where he used to the meeting. He then drives to Bracebridge where he spends several hours with another friend but does not continue consumption. There is no evidence around what he did while in Bracebridge. Mr. Caschera testified that he does not need to measure the cocaine he uses because he can accurately identify amounts. He is a casual user but is found with a crack pipe and scales in his pants pocket.
37That said, even if I cannot accept Mr. Caschera’s evidence entirely, it does raise a reasonable doubt. Mr. Caschera’s explanation of use is consistent with the toxicology reports. Cocaine was detected at 0.041 mg/l of blood with the inactive breakdown product, benzoylecgonine at 1.9 mg/L of blood. He was on a suboxone program which is consistent with the detection of buprenorphine. There is no evidence that he was in the active phase of cocaine use. PC Hutchinson opined that he was impaired by a narcotic analgesic. His driving was not described as aggressive or risk-taking. Observations of him during the DIE were not consistent with the active phase – dilated pupils, alertness, euphoria, etc.
38Mr. Caschera’s explanation and experience around his crash phase supports his alternative explanation of fatigue. Mr. Caschera testified that he works late hours and only had three to four hours of sleep the two nights prior. He testified that he has sleep apnea such that he does not get a good sleep, even when he does sleep. The lack of sleep may explain the observations of drowsiness and the lack of co-ordination.
39PC Hutchinson opined that Mr. Caschera was impaired by a narcotic analgesic and cannabis. While buprenorphine was detected, the levels were insufficient to prove that Mr. Caschera was impaired by the buprenorphine. Cannabis was not detected. PC Hutchinson explained that he must opine based on his observations at the time and not speculate that he was in a crash phase from use of another drug. While that explanation makes sense under the testing guidelines, it does raise questions about the accuracy of the observations.
40While driving while impaired to any degree would ground a conviction, it is the minimal driving observations and the inconsistent findings with respect to the drugs, coupled with the evidence from Mr. Caschera that the court does accept, that raises a doubt as to whether Mr. Caschera was in a crash phase, or was simply fatigued.
41Even taking into consideration all of the evidence and observations of PC Peddie and PC Hutchinson, the Court is left with a reasonable doubt and accordingly, Mr. Caschera is acquitted of the single count of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs which is before the court.
Released: June 23, 2026
Signed: Justice B. C. Oldham