R. Fetterly

During a kidnapping trial, the court made three key rulings.

First, the court found an air of reality to both principal and aider modes of participation, leaving both for the jury with a Thatcher instruction.

Second, the court ruled that while the accused's wife was a compellable witness under the amended Canada Evidence Act, her text messages to the accused were inadmissible due to spousal privilege and irrelevance.

Third, the court found an air of reality to the defence of duress, specifically regarding whether the accused had a safe avenue of escape, and left the defence for the jury's consideration.

The jury ultimately returned a guilty verdict.

The accused, facing charges of fraud and forgery, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a stay of proceedings pending the appointment of state-funded counsel on the morning his trial was scheduled to commence.

The court reviewed the extensive procedural history, noting the accused's repeated changes of counsel and previous adjournments.

Applying the Rowbotham criteria, the court found the accused failed to demonstrate that he had been denied Legal Aid, failed to prove indigence given evidence of substantial assets, and failed to show that the charges were sufficiently complex to require counsel for a fair trial.

The application was dismissed as a final attempt to delay the trial.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg and the resulting sentence.

The appellant argued that the roadside screening demand lacked reasonable suspicion under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter and that the breath test evidence failed to comply with s. 258(1)(c)(iv) of the Criminal Code because two different technicians were involved in the testing process.

The court held that the trial judge properly considered the constellation of observable indicators supporting reasonable suspicion and applied the correct legal standard.

The court also found no error in the interpretation of the Criminal Code requirement that breath samples be analyzed by an approved instrument operated by a qualified technician, concluding that the involvement of two officers in preparatory and analytical steps did not violate the provision.

The sentence, including an $1,200 fine and 18‑month driving prohibition based on high breath readings, was within the trial judge’s discretion.

The accused was charged with personation and wilfully obstructing a peace officer after a driver stopped during a traffic investigation falsely identified himself as another individual.

The Crown relied primarily on the investigating officer’s in‑court identification of the accused more than two years after the stop, supported by limited circumstantial evidence relating to personal information provided by the driver.

The court emphasized the inherent unreliability of eyewitness identification evidence, particularly stranger identification and in‑dock identifications unsupported by contemporaneous descriptions or photo lineups.

The officer had made no contemporaneous notes of the driver’s physical characteristics and recalled only generic descriptors.

Considering the frailties of the identification evidence and the weakness of the circumstantial evidence, the court held that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.