Russell M. Allegra

The accused was charged with impaired driving by drug on October 20, 2013, in Milton, Ontario, contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused admitted to being prescribed methadone since 2011 or 2012 and was using this drug at the time of the offence.

Two civilian witnesses observed the accused's vehicle exhibiting extremely erratic and dangerous driving patterns for approximately 10 to 15 minutes, including running red lights, mounting curbs, swerving abruptly, and driving into oncoming traffic.

Police located the accused shortly thereafter under her vehicle attempting to replace a flat tire.

A Standard Field Sobriety Test was conducted, followed by a Drug Recognition Evaluation, which concluded the accused was impaired by a narcotic analgesic.

A urine sample detected methadone, diazepam, nordiazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, carboxytetrahydrocannabinol, and mirtazapine.

The accused testified that her impairment was attributable to sleep deprivation, assault by her boyfriend earlier that day, and side effects of prescribed medications.

The defence called Dr. David Rosenbloom to provide alternative explanations for the signs of impairment.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and found the defence expert's evidence to be biased and of no weight.

The court convicted the accused based on the totality of the evidence, including the dangerous driving observations, the DRE evaluation, and the medical evidence.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol concentration (BAC) after registering a "Fail" on a roadside screening device at a RIDE stop and subsequently providing "over 80" Breathalyzer readings.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the Breathalyzer evidence on Charter grounds, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol in the defendant's body when making the initial roadside screening device demand, thereby violating section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the odour of alcohol emanating from the vehicle combined with observations of nervousness and slurred speech, satisfying the statutory standard under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court also found that even if a Charter breach had occurred, exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) was not warranted.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a sample of his breath into an approved screening device following a RIDE program stop outside a licensed bar.

The Crown alleged the defendant deliberately failed to provide an adequate breath sample during six tests conducted over approximately six minutes.

The defendant testified he was attempting to comply but may have had difficulty with the mechanics of the test due to his habit of chewing gum and keeping his tongue still.

The court found that the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant formed a clear intention to refuse or fail to provide a sample, and acquitted him.

The accused was charged with unsafe storage of firearms (12 counts) and assault.

The Crown alleged that the accused stored shotguns and rifles in an unsafe manner contrary to section 86(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused raised Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the warrantless seizure of firearms pursuant to section 117.04(2) of the Criminal Code was justified based on reasonable grounds to believe that unsafely stored, potentially loaded firearms were present in a residence with two toddlers.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that he possessed a secure gun vault and found him guilty on nine counts of unsafe storage.

The accused was acquitted on three counts where the firearms did not meet the definition of a firearm under the Criminal Code.

The accused was acquitted of assault due to reasonable doubt regarding the exact nature of the physical contact.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand for a breath sample under s. 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

A police officer stopped the accused for speeding and, observing signs of impairment, requested a roadside breath sample using an approved screening device (ASD).

The accused made six attempts to provide a sample, each resulting in an error code indicating an insufficient sample.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally failed to provide a proper sample.

The defence argued the accused was suffering from a chest cold and cough that prevented him from providing an adequate sample, and that he was attempting to comply with the officer's instructions.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's intent to fail and acquitted him.