P. Andras Schreck

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and with failing to appear in court contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case for possession rested solely on the arresting officer's claim to have detected the smell of marijuana emanating from the accused's vehicle.

The court found the officer's testimony regarding the strength and permeability of the odour to be implausible and internally inconsistent.

The court concluded that the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds and violated the accused's Charter rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

On the fail to appear charge, the court found that the Crown failed to prove the requisite mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, as the accused's testimony regarding his mistaken belief that his lawyer had rescheduled the trial date raised a reasonable doubt.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused brought a Mills application seeking production of third-party records held by medical providers, telecommunications companies, police services, and probation officers.

The application involved a sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm charge arising from an intimate relationship that had ended.

The court conducted a two-stage analysis under sections 278.3 to 278.9 of the Criminal Code, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests.

The court granted production of certain hospital records, telephone records, police records relating to prior investigations, and police occurrence reports involving dishonesty allegations, while denying production of the complainant's telephone records, family physician records, and probation records.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether evidence of a failed approved screening device test, without evidence of device calibration, was sufficient to justify an arrest.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the failed screening device result, even absent explicit testimony regarding calibration.

The court distinguished between cases where the device's functioning was "on the table" due to contradictory evidence and cases where the evidence was silent on the issue.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, a Michigan resident, was arrested for operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol in his blood.

He was held for a bail hearing based on a police practice of holding all non-residents, despite having no reasonable grounds to believe he would fail to attend court.

The court found violations of his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

While declining to grant a stay of proceedings, the court excluded the breath test evidence as the appropriate remedy, resulting in dismissal of the charge.

The accused was charged with failing to remain at the scene of an accident with intent to escape civil or criminal liability contrary to s. 252(1) of the Criminal Code, driving while suspended contrary to s. 53 of the Highway Traffic Act, careless driving contrary to s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, and driving without insurance contrary to s. 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the vehicle involved in the accident.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and found that circumstantial evidence—including the accused's ownership of the vehicle, his proximity to the scene, his appearance shortly after the incident while sweating, and the removal of licence plates—established guilt on the fail to remain charge, driving while suspended, and driving without insurance.

The careless driving charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the manner of driving.

A ruling on the voluntariness of a statement made by an accused charged with sexual offences against a child.

The accused was interviewed by police for approximately three hours following his arrest.

The Crown sought to admit the entire statement at trial, while the defence argued that portions of the statement were involuntary due to police inducements and the use of coercive interrogation techniques.

The court found that the initial portion of the statement was voluntary but excluded statements made after the police officer presented the accused with a stark choice between admitting to a one-time mistake or being investigated as a serial predator, which constituted a quid pro quo inducement that overbore the accused's will.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results to prove the second charge.

The accused applied to exclude the breath test results based on alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand a breath sample, there was a violation of the accused's section 10(b) rights regarding access to counsel of choice.

The court excluded the breath test results under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was convicted on the impaired driving charge but acquitted on the excess blood alcohol charge.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on June 3, 2012, when he allegedly assaulted his former long-term partner following her attendance at a party.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and found the accused's evidence not credible and evasive on key points, including his explanations for attending anger management counselling and his knowledge of the complainant's hospital visit.

The complainant's testimony was found to be largely credible, though some aspects were exaggerated.

The court accepted corroborating evidence in the form of photographs showing injuries consistent with choking, the complainant's hospital attendance shortly after the alleged assault, and the accused's subsequent attendance at anger management counselling.

The court found the accused guilty of the lesser and included offence of assault.

A young person in custody at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre was charged with three counts of unlawfully using violence with intent to provoke fear in justice system participants to impede them in their duties, three counts of criminal harassment, and one count of mischief to property under $5,000.

The charges arose from an incident where the accused became aggressive and belligerent after being denied telephone access, shouted at staff, clenched his fists, approached staff members, and threw a telephone receiver against a wall.

The court found that the accused's conduct, while disruptive and inappropriate, did not constitute violence as legally defined, nor did it constitute threatening conduct designed to instill fear.

The court distinguished between disruptive institutional misconduct and criminal behaviour.

The accused was acquitted on all counts except mischief to property, for which he was convicted.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft under $5000 and failing to comply with a probation order, receiving a suspended sentence and probation.

The court issued a ruling on the use of restraints in the courtroom, addressing the practice of keeping all in-custody accused in handcuffs.

The judge ordered the removal of handcuffs and clarified that there is a presumption that accused persons should appear in court unrestrained unless the Crown establishes reasonable grounds for their use.

A youth was charged with invitation to sexual touching contrary to s. 152 of the Criminal Code and committing an indecent act by exposing his genital organs to a person under the age of 16 years contrary to s. 173(2) of the Criminal Code.

The allegations arose from incidents that occurred when the complainant was between two and five years old while attending an unlicensed daycare operated by the accused's mother.

The complainant did not disclose the incidents until Grade 5, when prompted by a classroom discussion about inappropriate sexual touching.

The trial judge found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, and rejected the accused's denials as marked by inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit on December 18, 2013.

His trial was scheduled for February 24, 2015, approximately 14 months after the charge.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the overall institutional delay exceeded the applicable guidelines of 8-10 months, the applicant had suffered actual prejudice and the case was not complex.

The court granted the application and stayed the proceedings.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault against his former domestic partner.

This was the second assault conviction involving the same victim, with a prior conviction in 2007.

The court imposed a sentence of 22 days imprisonment on an intermittent basis, with credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 24 months probation with conditions including no contact with the victim, a 500-metre exclusion zone, weapons prohibition, and mandatory participation in alcohol assessment and counselling programs.

The court rejected both a suspended sentence and a conditional sentence, finding that specific deterrence and denunciation of domestic violence required a custodial sentence.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a single-vehicle collision on Highway 410.

The defendant sought to exclude breath sample evidence on the basis that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, thereby violating sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the arresting officer failed to properly consider whether grounds for arrest existed and proceeded with the arrest without adequate Charter consideration.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and acquitted the defendant on both counts.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit.

The accused was found sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle with keys in the glove compartment.

The Crown alleged care and control; the defence argued the accused had arranged for a sober driver to pick him up and had no intention to drive.

The court found the statutory presumption of care and control was rebutted and that no realistic risk of danger existed that the vehicle would be set in motion.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

He was found in the early morning hours sitting in a car on the side of the road with all four tires flat, waiting for his father to pick him up.

The Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on observations of slurred speech, disorientation, bloodshot eyes, odour of alcohol, and breath test results exceeding the legal limit.

However, the court found that the presumption of care and control under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code was rebutted because the vehicle was inoperable and could not be driven.

The Crown failed to establish de facto care and control by proving a realistic risk of danger, as the vehicle was in a well-lit area, the road was not busy, and the vehicle's lights were on.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle stuck in a flower bed with the engine running.

He was charged with impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter application under ss. 10(a) and 10(b), finding he was not detained prior to his formal arrest.

The court also found the accused had care and control of the vehicle, as the vehicle was operable despite being temporarily immoveable, triggering the statutory presumption.

The accused was found guilty of the over 80 charge but acquitted of impaired driving due to a lack of expert evidence linking his blood alcohol level to impairment.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and while his blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit.

The defendant was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle stuck in a flower bed with a bent front axle.

The Crown sought to rely on the statutory presumption of care and control under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath samples on Charter grounds and argued that the vehicle's inoperability defeated the presumption of care and control.

The court found no Charter breach, upheld the presumption of care and control, but acquitted on the impairment charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.