Richard George Floyd

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams.

The trial took place after the Bill C-46 amendments to the Criminal Code came into force, making it a transitional case.

The Crown relied on the testimony of a breath technician but failed to provide a certificate of an analyst or sufficient viva voce evidence regarding the certification of the alcohol standard used to calibrate the breathalyzer.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the Crown failed to meet its evidentiary burden to rely on the presumption of accuracy under s. 320.31(1) or to prove the offence at common law.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

The applicants sought a stay of criminal proceedings for sexual abuse charges, arguing that significant pre-charge delay amounted to an abuse of process and violated their Charter rights (sections 7, 11(b), 11(d)).

The charges stemmed from investigations in 2002-2004 that were closed without charges, but re-opened in 2017-2018 based on new disclosures from complainants.

The court applied the three-stage test for abuse of process from Piccirilli, considering prejudice to a fair trial or the justice system's integrity, alternative remedies, and a balancing of interests.

The court found no state misconduct or intentional delay, and accepted that the 2018 charges were based on new evidence.

It concluded that the interests of justice required the charges to proceed to trial, dismissing the applications for a stay.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and choking to facilitate sexual assault following an encounter that began as a consensual meeting arranged through an online dating site.

The evidence showed the accused became increasingly intoxicated and engaged in escalating aggressive sexual behaviour, including slapping, choking, and threats, culminating in a final sexual encounter found to be non-consensual.

The court relied on the complainant’s testimony, corroborating text messages, medical evidence of bruising, and admissions in the accused’s police interview.

The court rejected the possibility of an honest but mistaken belief in consent, finding that any such belief would have arisen from recklessness and self‑induced intoxication and that the accused took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and choking to assist sexual assault.

The complainant, a single mother receiving Mother's Allowance, signed a lease for an apartment and provided a post-dated cheque.

The property management company returned the cheque, stating they did not accept post-dated cheques and would not accept applications from persons on Mother's Allowance unless their caseworker ensured direct payment of rent.

The complainant subsequently died, and her executrix continued the human rights complaint.

The Board of Inquiry found that the direct payment requirement was a flagrant and willful discrimination based on the receipt of public assistance, contrary to section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $1,750 in special damages and $2,500 in general damages, and to cease requiring direct payment of rent from persons receiving public assistance.