4 total
The court convicted the accused of driving with excess blood alcohol, finding the brief delay for a roadside screening device constitutionally permissible.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.
The Crown obtained a roadside breath sample via an Approved Screening Device following a traffic stop.
The defence challenged whether the demand was made "forthwith" as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and whether the accused's Charter rights to counsel were violated.
The trial judge found that an informal demand was made within seconds of the officer forming reasonable suspicion, followed by a formal demand minutes later.
The delay in administering the test was found to be reasonably necessary given the time required to obtain the screening device.
The accused's right to counsel was not violated as there was insufficient time to realistically consult counsel before the test.
The trial judge convicted the accused.
A mistrial was declared and defence counsel removed after irreconcilable conflicts emerged between an agreed statement of facts and the defence's anticipated evidence.
The accused was charged with firearms and drug offences following a search warrant execution.
The trial proceeded by agreed statement of facts with no witnesses called.
However, material discrepancies emerged between the agreed statement and the defence's anticipated evidence regarding the location of a firearm, where the accused slept, and how often he remained at the premises.
The defence sought to call evidence to clarify or contradict the agreed statement.
The court found irreconcilable conflicts between the agreed statement and the defence's new position, determined that defence counsel could not continue due to conflicts of interest, and declared a mistrial.
The accused was convicted of impaired driving using judicial notice of standard toxicological assumptions.
The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following observations by police officers on July 6, 2014.
The Crown proved impairment based on erratic driving conduct, physical symptoms observed at roadside, and evidence of alcohol consumption.
Although the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable, depriving the Crown of the statutory presumptions of accuracy and identity, the court found the Crown proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt through viva voce evidence and judicial notice of toxicological principles.
The accused was convicted on both counts, with the excess blood alcohol count conditionally stayed as a single delict.
The court granted a stay of proceedings for impaired driving charges due to a 25-month delay caused primarily by the Crown's failure to disclose a booking video.
The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.
Approximately 25 months elapsed between arrest and the second trial date.
The defence brought a motion to stay proceedings alleging a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Crown failed to provide disclosure of a booking video despite repeated requests over many months.
The court found the delay constitutionally intolerable and granted the stay of proceedings.
