Rahman J.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop on October 21, 2017.

The defendant challenged the charges on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that while the arrest was lawful and the defendant's section 9 rights were not breached, the police violated the defendant's right to counsel of choice under section 10(b) by failing to adequately facilitate contact with counsel of choice and by not informing the defendant of the option to contact an alternative lawyer.

The evidence of refusal was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving based on the officer's observations and video evidence from the police division.

A youth was convicted of robbery and aggravated assault following a group attack on a victim and his three friends at a community centre playground.

The victim was punched, kicked, and stabbed 16 times, suffering life-threatening injuries.

The court determined the appropriate sentence balancing the seriousness of the offence and the offender's degree of participation against rehabilitation considerations under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown sought 24 months of custody and supervision followed by probation, while the defence sought a deferred custody order or open custody.

The court imposed 12 months of custody and supervision (8 months custody in open custody, 4 months supervision) followed by 12 months of probation, along with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with 18 driving-related offences arising from a rear-end collision on the Queen Elizabeth Way in which five occupants of the struck vehicle suffered bodily harm.

The Crown alleged dangerous driving, impaired driving, and driving with excess blood alcohol.

The court found the accused not guilty of dangerous driving but guilty of all counts of impaired operation and driving with excess blood alcohol.

The court rejected the defence theory that the struck vehicle moved into the accused's path, finding instead that the accused misjudged the distance while attempting to pass and that his impairment caused the collision.