P. Patterson

The defendant, Jay Singh Toor, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in his impaired driving case.

The defence argued the delay from arrest (May 16, 2020) to the anticipated end of trial (January 19-21, 2022) exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown contended that the s. 11(b) clock began when the information was sworn (September 7, 2020) and that there was defence-caused delay.

The court, following R. v. Kalanj, confirmed that the s. 11(b) clock starts when the information is sworn.

After deducting defence delay (approximately 7.5 weeks), the net delay was calculated to be under 15 months, falling below the 18-month ceiling.

The court also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance impacting court operations.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, as the delay was not found to be markedly longer than it reasonably should have been, especially given the pandemic context, and no s. 7 Charter violation was established.

The defendant was found sleeping in a parked van and charged with impaired operation and having a blood alcohol content (BAC) over 80 mg.

The trial addressed three contested issues: reasonable grounds for arrest (s. 8 Charter), failure to provide a Prosper warning (s. 10(b) Charter), and proof beyond reasonable doubt for both charges.

The court found objectively reasonable grounds for arrest and dismissed the s. 8 application.

It determined that a Prosper warning was not legally required under the circumstances, or was functionally met, and the defendant's waiver of counsel was informed and unequivocal, leading to the admission of breath samples and a conviction for the over 80 BAC charge.

However, the court acquitted the defendant of impaired operation, finding reasonable doubt regarding actual impairment due to alternative explanations for roadside indicia and the absence of driving evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown relied on breath test readings of 136 and 131 milligrams and expert evidence extrapolating the accused's blood alcohol content at the time of driving.

The court found that while the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds, the Crown failed to prove the absence of bolus drinking, rendering the expert opinion unreliable.

Additionally, the evidence of impairment was inconsistent and frail, with minimal evidence of bad driving.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.