2 total
The accused was convicted of failing to provide a breath sample after the court rejected his racial profiling and reasonable excuse defences.
The accused was charged with failing to comply with a roadside demand to provide a breath sample.
The defence raised allegations of racial profiling, arguing the stop was motivated by the accused's race and that the demand was unlawful.
The court found the officers had articulated objective grounds for the stop based on the time of day, location near licensed establishments with a history of drinking and driving incidents, the vehicle's prolonged stop at an intersection, and slow driving.
The court rejected the racial profiling allegation, finding no evidence the officers knew the accused's race before deciding to investigate.
The court also found the demand was lawful based on reasonable suspicion grounded in the smell of alcohol on the accused's breath, corroborated by multiple officers.
The accused failed to establish a reasonable excuse for refusing the demand, as his distrust of police was subjectively sincere but objectively unreasonable.
The accused was convicted.
Conviction set aside and acquittal entered due to erroneous substantive use of unadopted prior inconsistent statement.
The appellant appealed his conviction for break, enter and theft.
At trial, the Crown's principal witness, an admitted participant in the crime, testified that he acted alone, contradicting a prior statement to police that implicated the appellant.
The trial judge permitted the Crown to cross-examine the witness on the prior statement under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.
The witness never adopted the statement, and the Crown did not apply to admit it under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.
However, the trial judge admitted the statement as an exhibit and instructed the jury they could use it as substantive evidence.
The Crown conceded this was an error.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.
