Ranbir S. Mann

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court found that approximately 13 months elapsed from the swearing of the information to the trial date, with 11 months constituting institutional delay exceeding the local guideline of 8-9 months.

The defendant demonstrated actual prejudice through educational disruption caused by additional legal fees necessitated by the delay.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired operation under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code following a summary conviction trial.

He argued that he was not operating the vehicle, that his investigative detention was arbitrary contrary to s. 9 of the Charter, and that the seizure of his breath samples violated s. 8 of the Charter due to improper administration of the approved screening device.

The appeal court held that the trial judge’s credibility findings and factual determinations were entitled to deference and were supported by the evidence.

The officer had reasonable grounds to detain the appellant while investigating a nearby collision and subsequently developed reasonable suspicion of impaired driving.

The roadside breath demand and arrest were found lawful, and the breath sample procedure was properly conducted.

The defendant brought a motion seeking full-indemnity costs after the plaintiff receiver discontinued an action against him shortly before trial.

The defendant argued that the discontinuance amounted to complete success and that the claim against him had always lacked merit.

The court applied Rule 23.05 and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered whether the plaintiff had a bona fide cause of action and was justified in commencing and pursuing the proceeding.

The court found that the receiver had reasonable grounds to bring and continue the action based on evidence of a fraudulent financing scheme and tracing of funds connected to the purchase of real property.

Given that the action was justified and the discontinuance resulted from economic considerations following settlement relating to the key asset, the court declined to award costs.

The appellant appealed a conviction for care or control of a motor vehicle while over 80 mg of alcohol in blood.

She argued that the Crown failed to disclose police notes, that the investigative detention in a private parking lot was unlawful, that the breath samples constituted an unlawful search, and that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice arising from the alleged disclosure breach and that the issue was not properly pursued at trial.

Applying the ancillary police powers doctrine and the framework from Mann and Clayton, the court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate a potential impaired driver in a bar parking lot and that the detention and breath demands were lawful.

Minor misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge were found to be peripheral and not material to the conviction.

The applicant tenant sought damages for wrongful distress after the respondent landlord changed the locks and seized property for rent arrears.

The landlord counter-applied for rent arrears and property damage.

The court found that while the landlord had a right to distrain due to chronic rent arrears, it failed to prove the distress was executed during daylight hours, rendering it unlawful.

The tenant was awarded $10,000 for wrongful distress.

The landlord was awarded $89,060 for rent arrears, lost rent due to lack of notice, and property remediation costs, resulting in a net award to the landlord.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and failing to provide a suitable breath sample following a motor vehicle collision in Brampton.

The accused pled not guilty and alleged violations of her Charter rights under sections 7 and 8.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption, based on the totality of evidence including the collision, observations of physical signs of impairment, and admissions of alcohol consumption.

The court also found that the accused willfully failed to provide suitable breath samples despite numerous opportunities, clear instructions, and warnings.

The court rejected the accused's Charter arguments, finding no unlawful search or seizure and no violation of procedural fairness.

The accused was convicted on both counts.