Robbie Tsang

The accused was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9, arguing the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand.

The court found that the officer's observations, including the smell of alcohol, a half-empty case of beer, and the passenger's admission of drinking, established reasonable suspicion.

The court also noted that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under the Grant framework.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the accused was found guilty.

The accused, Yunlong Li, sought to reopen his trial after being convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The application was brought to introduce new evidence, including his own testimony and a new toxicology report, to support a bolus drinking defence.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, which requires considering due diligence, relevance, credibility, and potential impact on the trial result, along with whether the application attempts to reverse a tactical decision.

The court found that the proposed evidence, particularly the new toxicology report, was based on an inaccurate assumption and would not have altered the conviction.

The application was dismissed, emphasizing that reopening a trial after conviction is reserved for rare and exceptional circumstances.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol after being found asleep in his vehicle in a maintenance yard.

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment at the scene and breath test results showing blood alcohol levels of 100 and 95 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging that video recording of him using toilet facilities in police custody violated his section 7 and 8 rights.

The court found a Charter breach occurred due to improper positioning of a privacy screen in the cell video system, but determined that exclusion of evidence was not warranted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was convicted of both impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The trial was scheduled for two days in November 2016, but the second day could not be completed due to court unavailability.

A Crown witness failed to appear on the adjourned date in January 2017, resulting in a further adjournment to February 2017.

The total delay from information to trial completion was 529 days.

After deducting defence delay, the net delay was 482 days, falling below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice cases.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate the case took markedly longer than it should have and dismissed the application.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following observations by a York Regional Police Sergeant.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving based on the defendant's erratic driving, evasive conduct, and physical indicators of impairment.

However, the court found a breach of the defendant's section 10(b) Charter rights due to an unacceptable delay of 5 to 6 minutes in providing rights to counsel.

Despite this breach, the breath test evidence was admitted under the R. v. Grant analysis.

The defendant was ultimately found not guilty of impaired driving due to reasonable doubt regarding impairment, though the breath test showed a blood alcohol level of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought four to six months imprisonment, an 18-month driving prohibition, 12 months probation, and a DNA order.

The defence sought 90 days intermittent sentence, arguing the accused supported his parents and would lose employment.

The court imposed five months imprisonment, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount in drinking and driving cases, particularly where bodily harm resulted.

The court rejected the intermittent sentence despite the accused's otherwise positive circumstances, emphasizing the serious harm caused to the victim and his family.

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

He sought to exclude breath test results, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 and 10, specifically claiming the screening demand was not made forthwith as required by section 254(2) and that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found that the police did not breach the accused's constitutional rights.

The screening demand was made promptly once grounds were formed, the overall delay was reasonable given the volatile circumstances requiring officer safety and situation stabilization, and there was no realistic opportunity to provide counsel before the screening test given the brief nine-minute window and unstable conditions.