Robert De Chellis

The accused was charged with "Over 80" following a roadside stop for speeding.

The Crown relied on breath test evidence obtained through an Approved Screening Device test and approved instrument tests.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the breath test evidence on Charter grounds, alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found a serious breach of section 10(b) Charter rights, specifically regarding the accused's right to counsel in a language he understood.

Despite the Crown's arguments that the officer made reasonable efforts, the court found the police failed to take adequate steps to facilitate access to legal advice in Persian, the accused's first language.

The court excluded the breath test evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of approved instrument breath test readings pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple breaches of his Charter rights.

The primary focus at trial was whether the officer had reasonable grounds for the approved instrument demand given the possibility of mouth alcohol contamination.

The court found no Charter breach.

The officer's observation of the accused drinking while driving, the presence of an open beer can in the vehicle console, the accused's admission of prior drinking, and the odour of beer on the accused's breath provided reasonable suspicion for the approved screening device test.

The court rejected the defence argument that the officer should have suspected further drinking during a two-minute interval when the accused was briefly unattended, finding the accused's testimony unreliable and the officer's belief that no further drinking occurred to be logical and reasonable.

The officer properly waited more than 15 minutes after the accused's last observed drink before administering the approved instrument test, ensuring test reliability.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The accused brought a motion for a mistrial based on concerns raised by the Crown during trial that the accused may have been drinking alcohol and impaired.

The Crown's concern was based on observations by an officer in the hallway.

Defence counsel confirmed with the accused that he had not been drinking and was fit to proceed.

The defence argued that the mention of the issue could prevent a fair trial given that the charge related to alcohol and driving.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding that trial courts routinely hear prejudicial evidence later found inadmissible and must disregard such evidence.

The court noted that no prejudicial result occurred from the Crown's concern, which was appropriately raised and addressed.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 for allegedly cashing cheques that should have been paid to a subcontractor's company for a commercial paving job.

The Crown alleged the accused registered a sole proprietorship with a similar name to divert the funds.

The court found the evidence of both the accused and the key Crown witnesses to be unreliable and inconsistent, particularly regarding the nature of their business partnership and the payment of materials.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.