3 total
Finding of guilt for obstructing a peace officer after accused refused to identify himself and resisted arrest.
The accused was charged with obstructing a peace officer after refusing to identify himself and physically resisting arrest.
Police approached the accused, who was sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle, after an automatic license plate reader indicated an unlicensed driver was associated with the vehicle.
The accused stepped out of the vehicle and attempted to walk away, refusing to provide his name.
The court found the detention and subsequent arrest lawful under the Highway Traffic Act.
The court also upheld the search of the vehicle incident to arrest, which yielded the accused's driver's license, and dismissed allegations of Charter breaches and police assault.
A finding of guilt was entered.
The court found no Charter breaches during a roadside investigation and convicted the accused.
This decision addresses the admissibility of breathalyzer evidence in an impaired driving case where the accused, Lydia Havasova, challenged the constitutionality of police conduct under sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court found no Charter breach in the initial police interaction or the roadside demand for a breath sample, emphasizing that the accused was not detained prior to the demand.
The decision clarifies the application of the law regarding detention and the use of statements made prior to detention for establishing grounds for breath demands.
The court also considered the impact of officer training on Charter compliance but ultimately admitted the breath test results, finding the Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court held that abandoning a vehicle does not negate police authority to make an ASD demand within three hours of driving.
The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether police had lawful authority to demand an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test from Michael David Hamilton after he abandoned his vehicle.
The court found that the officers had reasonable grounds to suspect Hamilton had alcohol in his body and had operated a vehicle within the preceding three hours, satisfying the requirements of s 320.27(1)(b) of the Criminal Code as amended by Bill C-2.
The court rejected Charter challenges related to detention and ASD demand, finding no s 8 or s 9 breaches.
The evidence, including officer observations and breath test results, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Hamilton’s blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit.
