R. Baran

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle with over 80 ml of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

A police officer responded to a radio call about a possibly impaired driver and found the accused sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle.

The accused failed a breath screening device and subsequently provided breath samples exceeding the legal limit.

The central issue was whether the accused occupied the driver's seat, which would engage the statutory presumption of care or control.

The court found the accused's evidence unreliable and internally inconsistent, while accepting the officer's credible testimony.

The court concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was seated in the driver's seat, engaged the presumption, and the accused failed to rebut it on a balance of probabilities.

Guilty verdict entered.

The defendant was charged with exceed 80 (impaired driving) following a RIDE checkpoint stop on November 8, 2013.

The defendant sought to contact counsel of choice (Shauna Pemberton) but was unable to reach her.

Police made reasonable efforts to contact her, left a message, waited approximately 29 minutes, and then offered duty counsel.

The defendant spoke with duty counsel and subsequently provided breath samples registering 106 and 101.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath test results, arguing his right to counsel was infringed.

The court found no breach of Charter rights and admitted the evidence.

The defendant applied to admit statements he made to police upon arrest, in the cruiser, and at the detachment as res gestae.

The Crown conceded the arrest statements were res gestae but opposed the admission of the cruiser and detachment statements for their truth.

The court held that the cruiser and detachment statements were temporally separated from the arrest and there was sufficient time to fabricate a simple defence.

Therefore, they were not admitted as res gestae, but could be admitted as evidence of reaction and consistency under the rule in Edgar if the defendant testified.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial addressed four issues: whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to make a screening demand; whether the officer could reasonably rely on the screening test result given the mouth alcohol effect; whether the accused's section 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated; and whether the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable.

The court found no Charter violations and that the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable.

The accused was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.