R. Keenan

This decision addresses a Charter application challenging the admissibility of breathalyzer evidence and other related evidence in a case involving impaired driving, operation with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 ml, and dangerous driving.

The court carefully analyzed the issues of identity of the driver, the reliability of the alcohol screening device (ASD) fail result considering residual mouth alcohol, the lawfulness of detention in the police cruiser during the alcohol screening demand, and the timing of the right to counsel.

The court found no breach of sections 8 or 9 of the Charter but did find a minor breach of section 10(b) due to a brief delay in providing the right to counsel.

The breathalyzer evidence was admitted, and the accused was found guilty of the "80 plus" offence but not guilty of impaired driving or dangerous driving.

A young person, P.P., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving two cousins for historical incidents.

The trial involved testimony from the complainants, their mother, and the accused and his sister.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) regarding reasonable doubt and assessed the credibility and reliability of all witnesses.

Significant inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence, including misidentification and factual contradictions, raised reliability concerns.

The Crown's similar fact application failed due to an inability to rebut the assertion of collusion.

The court found P.P. not guilty on all charges, concluding that the evidence did not satisfy the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.