Patrick Mark Jaeger Quilty

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.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and with having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b).

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath samples and statements on Charter grounds, arguing violations of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand breath samples based on the single motor vehicle accident, the accused's proximity to the driver's side door, and signs of impairment.

The court also found no violation of the right to counsel.

The court admitted all evidence and found the accused guilty of both offences based on toxicological evidence establishing blood-alcohol levels well in excess of the legal limit at the time of the accident.

The defendant was charged with assault and obstructing police following an incident on Highway 400 where his vehicle was involved in a rear-end collision.

After initially resisting the officer's directive to have his vehicle towed, the defendant pushed a tow truck driver who was attempting to remove the defendant's family from the vehicle.

The court found the defendant not guilty of obstructing police due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the obstruction continued at the time of arrest, and not guilty of assault on the basis of self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, finding the defendant had a reasonable apprehension of threat to his family and the force used was proportionate.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondent on charges of accessing and possessing child pornography.

The trial judge had excluded statements made by the respondent to the police, finding the Crown had not proven they were voluntary due to an incomplete and inaccurate record and the lack of credibility and reliability of the police officers' evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's determinations on voluntariness.