R. Venables

Peter Hiebert pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death under the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident involved failing to stop at a clearly marked intersection, resulting in a fatal collision.

The court accepted a joint submission for sentencing, which included a $4,000 fine, two years of probation with 150 hours of community service, and a three-year driving suspension.

Victim impact statements from the deceased's family were heard, emphasizing the profound loss and their desire for the defendant to learn and become a better person.

The judgment highlighted specific and general deterrence, noting the defendant's remorse and the importance of driver diligence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the allowable limit.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath readings on Charter grounds, arguing that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for the Approved Screening Device demand and Intoxilyzer demand, and that there was a six-minute delay in advising the accused of rights to counsel.

The court found no section 8 Charter violation regarding the breath demands, but found a breach of section 10(b) regarding the delay in providing rights to counsel.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court admitted the breath readings and found the accused guilty.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the allowable limit.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath readings on the basis that the arresting officer violated his Charter rights under section 8 by making an Approved Screen Device (ASD) demand without proper consideration of residual mouth-alcohol.

The officer had incorrectly believed a 10-minute wait was required rather than 15 minutes.

The court found the officer's reliance on the ASD fail result was objectively reasonable given the officer had no actual evidence of when the accused last consumed alcohol, and the mere possibility of recent consumption did not render the demand unreasonable.

The court convicted the accused.