Paul Stunt

This voir dire decision addresses the admissibility of statements and breath test results in a criminal trial for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The accused, Yunlong Li, challenged the voluntariness of his statements and alleged violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and 10 (right to counsel).

The court found that Li's statements were voluntary and that police had reasonable grounds for the breath demand, thus no s. 8 violation occurred.

Furthermore, the court determined there was no s. 10 Charter violation, as Li understood his right to counsel and exercised it, including speaking with a Mandarin-speaking duty counsel.

The court concluded that no special circumstances required an interpreter beyond what was provided, and any delays were reasonable.

Consequently, all challenged evidence was admitted.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle, operation with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and assault of a peace officer with intent to resist arrest.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial judge found that the accused operated his vehicle in a parking lot and was in care or control of the vehicle while impaired.

The accused's testimony was found unreliable due to his level of impairment and inconsistencies with police evidence.

The accused was convicted of impaired operation and assault of a peace officer.

The over 80 charge was conditionally stayed.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against a five-and-a-half-year-old complainant on March 13, 2014.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial centered on credibility and the identity of the assailant.

The complainant testified via CCTV that the defendant showed her his genitals and touched her inappropriately.

However, during cross-examination, the complainant indicated that it was the defendant's 17-year-old son who committed these acts, not the defendant.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be unreliable and malleable, influenced by the questioning of various adults.

The investigating officer failed to properly investigate the alternate suspect despite being informed by the suspect's counsel that he wished to provide an inculpatory statement.

The defendant testified in his own defence and denied the allegations.

The court found his evidence left a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

This is a Crown appeal from acquittals on charges against a motor vehicle dealer and two salespersons for engaging in an unfair business practice by making an unconscionable representation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The trial involved a complex transaction where the consumer purchased a 2011 GMC Acadia with negative equity financing, trading in a 2011 Saturn.

The Justice of the Peace acquitted all defendants after finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an unconscionable representation had been made.

The appellate court upheld the acquittals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments.

The accused was charged with two counts of historical sexual assault and sexual interference against his daughter spanning from 1996 to 2003.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of similar acts from four other complainants to establish a pattern of predatory behavior.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this similar fact evidence.

The court found that the Crown failed to meet its burden of proof regarding collusion and that the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value.

The similar fact application was dismissed due to lack of temporal proximity, insufficient similarity of circumstances, different relationships between the accused and the various complainants, and concerns about potential collusion among witnesses.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision on December 14, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of the arrest, the admissibility of statements, and the right to counsel.

The court found no violation of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) regarding the arrest, as the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on civilian witness information and observations.

The court found no s. 7 violation regarding compelled statements, as the accused's statements to the officer were not compelled by a statutory duty to report.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) violation due to inadequate police note-taking regarding the accused's request to speak to counsel, resulting in exclusion of all statements made at the scene and en route to the detachment.

Under s. 24(2), the breath test results were admitted as the breach was minor and the public interest in highway safety favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving based on circumstantial evidence establishing he was the driver and that the driving occurred within the two-hour window required by statute.

The offender was convicted of three counts of sexual assault against a vulnerable employee with a learning disability at his workplace.

The offender, aged 60 at the time of the offences, sexually assaulted the victim on a single day in December 2011.

The victim, who functioned at the level of a 12 or 13-year-old and had been placed with the offender through a supported employment program, suffered significant trauma.

The offender demonstrated no insight into his conduct, claiming curiosity and believing the victim was consenting.

The court imposed a 90-day concurrent jail sentence (to be served intermittently if requested), 2-year probation with strict conditions including no contact and counselling requirements, a 10-year SOIRA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and ordered a DNA sample.

The accused, an employer in his 60s, was charged with three counts of sexual assault against a vulnerable 29-year-old female employee with a learning disability.

The employee was placed in the position through a supported employment program.

The Crown alleged three separate incidents of unwanted sexual touching in the workplace on December 1, 2011.

The accused claimed consent and raised a defence of mistaken belief in consent.

The court found that the accused was in a position of trust, power, and authority over the complainant, rendering any purported consent invalid.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as fabricated and accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his daughter between September 2007 and June 2008.

The Crown proceeded summarily with the accused's consent and waiver of limitation periods.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The total delay from charge to anticipated conclusion of trial was approximately 18 months and 19 days.

After deducting neutral intake time and inherent time requirements, the court determined institutional delay of 12 months, which exceeded but only slightly the 8-10 month guideline established in R. v. Morin.

The court found minimal actual prejudice to the accused, balanced against society's strong interest in having serious sexual assault charges decided on their merits.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.