Russell Wood

The Crown sought an order of certiorari to quash a justice of the peace's purported cancellation of an officer-in-charge (OIC) undertaking, which the Crown argued was beyond the justice's jurisdiction under s. 508(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the justice of the peace did not cancel the undertaking but merely refused to confirm it, an act also outside their jurisdiction.

Since the justice of the peace merely refused to perform an unauthorized act, there was no jurisdictional error to quash.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg, and three breaches of recognizance following his arrest on October 23, 2015.

The Crown sought to rely on breath sample evidence obtained at police headquarters.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the admissibility of this evidence, alleging violations of his rights under sections 9 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the accused was unlawfully detained for approximately 16 hours beyond what was necessary, that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel when charged with additional offences, and that his requests for medication were ignored.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence as a result of these Charter breaches and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug.

Police found the appellant asleep at the wheel of a running vehicle.

While there was overwhelming evidence of impairment, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the impairment was caused by a drug.

The court found no evidence, other than labels on pill bottles, that the bottles contained the stated drugs or that those drugs were in the appellant's system.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was dismissed.

The accused brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings for alleged breaches of s. 7 of the Charter arising from late disclosure and alleged refusal to provide information relating to a proposed third-party suspect.

The late disclosure involved photographs and notes that had not been transmitted through the police forensic database to the Crown and defence due to an inadvertent failure in the evidence transfer process.

The court held that late disclosure alone does not establish a Charter breach and that the accused must demonstrate prejudice affecting the ability to make full answer and defence.

As no prejudice or abuse of process was proven and the requested investigative material relating to a third party was speculative and unsupported by evidence, the court found no violation of s. 7.

The motion for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.