Orlando Da Silva

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit (Count 1) and impaired driving (Count 2).

The Crown's case was based on observations of erratic driving by civilian witnesses, police observations of indicia of impairment, and breath test results showing 170 mg/100 ml and 160 mg/100 ml.

The court dismissed Count 1 because the Crown failed to prove that the breath samples were received directly into the approved instrument as required by s. 258(1)(c)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant guilty on Count 2 based on the cumulative circumstantial evidence of impairment, including the protracted period of dangerous driving, physical indicia of intoxication, and the defendant's demeanor and confusion.

The applicant, Dellen Millard, facing a first-degree murder trial, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court found the first two branches of the Rowbotham test (denial of Legal Aid, serious and complex case requiring counsel) were met, but the third branch (lack of financial means) was disputed due to complex asset holdings under receivership.

The court adjourned the Rowbotham application sine die, directing the Receiver to apply to the Commercial List for the release of vendor take-back mortgage monies and cash from Millard Properties Inc. to fund Millard's defence, deeming it just and equitable given Millard's role in creating these assets.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop.

The Crown called evidence from the arresting sergeant and the qualified breath technician.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b).

The trial judge found no breach of sections 10(a) or 10(b), and no breach of section 8 regarding the sobriety tests or reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

However, the trial judge found a breach of section 9 (arbitrary detention) due to unexplained over-holding of approximately six hours after the breath samples were obtained.

The trial judge declined to exclude the breath samples or stay the over 80 charge.

On the impaired driving charge, the trial judge found the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, as the sobriety test results were inadmissible and the remaining evidence of impairment was insufficient.