Peter A. Harris

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and breath demand, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand, as the grounds relied upon were not objectively supported.

The court also found that the accused was subjected to an unlawful arrest and detention, during which he was handcuffed excessively tightly despite being compliant, causing him significant pain.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with "excess alcohol" following a motor vehicle stop.

The accused brought Charter applications seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence on grounds of violations of sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device test and that the ASD was working properly.

However, the court found a serious breach of section 10(b) rights regarding the right to counsel of choice.

The police called duty counsel before attempting to facilitate contact with the accused's preferred counsel, waited only one minute before placing the accused on the phone with duty counsel, and provided misleading information about efforts to contact counsel of choice.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the serious and systemic nature of the breach.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter motion seeking a stay of proceedings on grounds that his right to be tried within a reasonable period of time had been violated.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and excess alcohol on September 27, 2014.

The Crown conceded there was no case to meet on the fail to remain charge.

The motion was heard following trial evidence on June 22, 2016.

The court found that the total delay attributable to the Crown was approximately 12 months, consisting of 3.5 months of disclosure delay and 8 months 11 days of institutional delay.

This exceeded the Askov/Morin guidelines of 8-10 months.

The court found the defendant suffered modest prejudice and that the Crown's systemic failure to provide timely video disclosure was a significant factor.

The court concluded the defendant's section 11(b) rights had been breached and stayed the charges.

The applicant sought exclusion of breath sample evidence under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that police violated his section 8 rights by obtaining the samples without reasonable grounds to arrest.

The applicant challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to arrest on an "over 80 mgs" charge and make an Intoxilyzer demand under section 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant raised three main issues: whether the officer should have delayed the approved screening device (ASD) test to eliminate mouth alcohol concerns, whether the officer should have verified device calibration, and whether the officer demonstrated sufficient competence in operating the device.

The court found no section 8 breach and dismissed the application.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on grounds of unreasonable trial delay.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol on June 6, 2014, with trial scheduled for June 15, 2016.

The court conducted an attribution analysis of delay across multiple categories: neutral intake, trial readiness, institutional delay, and Crown delay.

The court found that the Crown was responsible for approximately 16 months of delay, primarily due to late disclosure of instrument calibration and maintenance records for the Intoxilyzer 8000C device.

This delay exceeded the Askov/Morin guidelines of 8-10 months.

Although the defendant suffered only modest prejudice, the court found that the defendant's interests and society's interest in a prompt trial outweighed society's interest in a trial on the merits, particularly given the Crown's responsibility for the delay.

The charge was stayed.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation, excess alcohol, and fail to remain under the Criminal Code following a motor vehicle accident on September 27, 2014.

The defendant brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence, arguing that the arrest and demand for breath samples violated his section 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The court examined whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired operation and make an Intoxilizer demand.

Despite deficiencies in the officer's note-taking and some inaccuracies in his evidence, the court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances, including the report of a rear-end collision, the driver leaving the scene, reports of difficulty walking, bloodshot eyes, and a heavy odour of alcohol.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant brought a Charter section 8 application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence.

The search was conducted pursuant to a Criminal Code search warrant based on information from two confidential informants.

The defendant challenged the adequacy of the judicial summary prepared under the Garofoli step six procedure, arguing it was insufficient to permit meaningful challenge to the warrant's validity.

The defendant also challenged whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrant's issuance.

The court found the judicial summary adequate to allow the defendant to mount both facial and sub-facial challenges, and concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed based on the totality of circumstances, including information from two corroborating confidential sources with track records of reliability, some first-hand observations, and police corroboration through database checks and surveillance.

The application was dismissed and the evidence ruled admissible.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on charges of second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault arising from a violent street attack on September 30, 2013, outside Sang's Restaurant in Toronto.

The attack involved six assailants attacking three victims, resulting in the death of Danny La from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both defendants to trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault charges, but rejected the attempted murder charge and the Crown's theory of constructive first degree murder based on forcible confinement.

The accused was charged with impaired operation, excess alcohol, and possession of cocaine following a motor vehicle accident.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused was the driver.

The court found that while the accused exhibited clear signs of impairment, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle or in care and control of it.

The accused was found 30 feet from the disabled vehicle when police arrived, with no direct evidence of driving or occupancy of the driver's seat.

The court applied the three-pathway test for care and control and found that the Crown had not established a realistic risk of danger as required.

The accused was acquitted of the driving charges but convicted of cocaine possession, as the arrest was found to be lawful based on reasonable and probable grounds.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol in the blood following a roadside stop.

The court conducted a Charter voir dire to determine whether breath sample evidence should be excluded.

The court found that the police failed to make a proper and timely demand for an approved screening device sample at the roadside, violating sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

Additionally, the police failed to provide the accused with a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of choice, instead putting him on the phone to duty counsel after only 13 minutes and then dismissing his subsequent request for further assistance.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana, possession of marijuana over 3 kilograms for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of hydro under $5,000 following a police raid on a grow operation.

The defendant admitted possessing 14.9 kilograms of wet marijuana in his van but claimed it was refuse destined for disposal.

The court found the defendant not guilty of production and theft charges, but guilty of simple possession.

However, the defendant held a valid Health Canada authorization to possess up to 3,960 grams of dry marijuana for medical purposes.

Upon agreement of counsel regarding the dry weight conversion of the wet marijuana, the possession charge was dismissed as the quantity fell within the defendant's authorized limit.

The accused was charged with fail to stop, impaired operation, and excess alcohol following a motor vehicle collision in a parking lot on September 16, 2011.

The Crown proved the fail to stop charge beyond a reasonable doubt based on eyewitness evidence and vehicle identification.

However, the impaired operation charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of impairment, with the court finding the observations of impairment were inconsistent and could be explained by fatigue rather than alcohol consumption.

The excess alcohol charge was also dismissed as a consequence of excluding the breath sample evidence due to a breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found that police failed to ensure the accused, who had significant language limitations, understood his right to counsel and had a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant did not dispute the breath test readings of 110 and 90 mgs. percent but argued that bolus alcohol consumption—the rapid ingestion of a large quantity of alcohol shortly before driving—created a reasonable doubt as to his blood-alcohol level at the time of driving.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's evidence regarding the timing and quantity of alcohol consumed was found to be manifestly unreliable and inconsistent.

The court rejected the bolus drinking defence and convicted the defendant.

The Crown charged William Pav and Dylan Violo with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on College Street in Toronto on January 13, 2013, where the defendants allegedly participated in a swarming attack on Joseph Kau.

A directed verdict was granted on the assault with a weapon charge against Violo.

The trial focused on identification evidence and was corroborated by DNA evidence linking the defendants' clothing and Pav's hands to the victim's blood.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault causing bodily harm but acquitted Pav of assault with a weapon due to insufficient evidence of weapon use.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample on an approved screening device (ASD) on July 29, 2013, on Highway 401 in Toronto.

The Crown alleged the defendant intentionally failed to produce a suitable sample during six attempts over five minutes.

The defendant testified he attempted to comply with the officer's instructions.

The court acquitted the defendant, finding that the Crown must prove the defendant intended to fail to provide a sample, not merely that he knew of the failure.

Additionally, the court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the failure was caused by the defendant's conduct or by malfunction or improper administration of the ASD device.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and excess alcohol following a rear-end collision with a taxi at approximately 2:30 a.m. on October 20, 2012.

The Crown relied on observations of impairment by the arresting officer and toxicology evidence showing blood alcohol readings of 172 and 179 mg/100mL more than two hours after the incident.

The defendant argued that bolus drinking (rapid consumption of alcohol shortly before driving) explained the high readings and that her blood alcohol level at the time of driving may have been below the legal limit.

The court acquitted the defendant of impaired operation but convicted on the excess alcohol charge, finding the defendant's evidence regarding bolus consumption unreliable and applying a common sense inference that people do not normally consume large quantities of alcohol immediately before driving.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault against a complainant who alleged that the taxi driver touched her genitals without consent during a cab ride on December 1, 2012.

The complainant was intoxicated and became ill during the ride.

The defendant denied the allegations and testified that he did not touch the complainant at any time.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was credible, her state of intoxication created a reliability gap in her testimony.

The security camera footage did not corroborate the allegations of continuous touching.

The defendant's evidence, while not fully believed, raised a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and excess alcohol on December 6, 2012.

He brought a motion under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to a trial within a reasonable period of time had been infringed.

The total delay from charge to expected trial conclusion was approximately 16 months.

The court analyzed the delay by considering the length of delay, periods waived by the defence, reasons for the delay (inherent time requirements, accused's actions, Crown's actions, and institutional resource limitations), prejudice to the accused, and the balance between the accused's interests and society's interests in a trial on the merits.

The court found that the delay attributable to the Crown was 7.5 months, which fell below the Askov/Morin guidelines of 8-10 months.

Although the defendant suffered significant prejudice in terms of stress, anxiety, and physical health impacts, the court concluded that this prejudice was outweighed by society's strong interest in a trial on the merits for serious charges involving impaired driving and personal injury.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant challenged the judicial authorization to search a residence and seize controlled drugs under section 8 of the Charter of Rights.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the facial validity of the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant.

The applicant initially lacked standing, but the Crown conceded the issue after hearing evidence.

The court applied the test from Hunter v. Southam and R. v. Debot, examining whether there was a credibly-based probability that evidence of a criminal offence would be found at the residence.

After excising problematic boiler-plate language and misleading statements from the ITO, the court found that the remaining evidence—comprising information from two confidential sources and police corroboration of biographical details—was sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for the search warrant authorization.

The accused pleaded guilty to seven charges involving child pornography: three counts of possession, three counts of making, and one count of distributing child pornography.

The offences involved two separate victims—eight underage members of a hockey team whose nude images were recorded without consent in a locker room, and a youth aged 15-17 with whom the accused engaged in an exploitative online relationship involving the exchange of explicit images and videos.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment, with credit for 10 months pre-trial custody, resulting in a suspended sentence followed by three years probation.

The court balanced the paramount sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence against mitigating factors including the accused's first-offender status, genuine remorse, insight into his conduct, willingness to undergo treatment, and low risk to reoffend.