P. Alexander

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for refusing to comply with a roadside breath demand.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the demand was made 'forthwith' and with reasonable suspicion.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, holding the 8-9 minute delay was reasonably necessary for the officer to run a query, wait for the screening device, and explain the consequences of refusal.

The court also found the objective component of reasonable suspicion was satisfied by the appellant's speed, failure to signal, departure from a licensed establishment, and odour of alcohol.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80, raising new s. 10(b) Charter arguments for the first time.

The Crown brought an application under s. 685 of the Criminal Code to summarily dismiss the appeal.

The court held that the Crown has jurisdiction to bring a s. 685 application in summary conviction appeals.

The court granted the application and dismissed the appeal, finding that allowing the new grounds would cause substantial prejudice to the Crown as there was no evidentiary record from the trial to evaluate the claims.

The offender, a former financial advisor, was convicted of Fraud Over $5,000 for operating a Ponzi-type scheme over eight years, defrauding multiple victims, many of whom were friends or elderly clients.

The court found the offender's breach of trust and the devastating financial and emotional impact on the victims to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, ordered to pay restitution of $109,150, and issued a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount, with six years to pay following his release.