Paul A. Renwick

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon following a stabbing incident at a restaurant.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to introduce two statements made by the accused during police interviews.

The court found that the second statement, which comprised virtually the entire Crown case, was not made voluntarily.

The statement was obtained through interrogation techniques characteristic of the Reid technique, including the presentation of fabricated evidence, manipulation of the accused's mental illness, and oppressive conditions including extended questioning without adequate food or rest.

The accused, who suffered from schizophrenia, was subjected to approximately nine and a half hours of questioning over a twelve-hour period.

The court found a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness and excluded the statement.

Without the statement, the Crown conceded there was insufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial, and the accused was discharged on all counts.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and driving with blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The trial addressed five key issues: whether dangerous driving was proven; whether the arrest and breath demand were lawful; whether the right to counsel was violated; whether evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter; and whether impaired driving was proven.

The court found the defendant guilty of dangerous driving and excess blood alcohol concentration, but acquitted on the impaired driving charge due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, despite a blood alcohol concentration of 2.5 times the legal limit.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on an “over 80” impaired driving charge, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable under the Criminal Code presumption of identity.

The trial judge had identified an unexplained 20‑minute delay between arrival at the police station and the commencement of the booking process and concluded the Crown had not proven the requirement beyond a reasonable doubt.

On appeal, the court held that whether the Crown had provided sufficient evidence to establish the “as soon as practicable” requirement was primarily a factual determination.

Applying the deferential standard of review for factual findings, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s reasoning.

The acquittal was therefore upheld and the Crown appeal dismissed.