S. Anderson

The accused brought an application for bail pursuant to s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code while on trial for 14 charges related to domestic violence.

The accused had been in custody since June 19, 2015.

The defence argued that material changes in circumstances—including weaknesses in the Crown's case revealed during the complainant's testimony and the passage of time—justified release.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the complainant's evidence remained credible and that the accused was not in a time-served situation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the passage of time constituted a material change in circumstances, the secondary ground for detention remained satisfied due to the accused's substantial history of breaching court orders and attempting to interfere with the administration of justice.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and with operating a motor vehicle as a novice driver with a blood alcohol content above zero contrary to section 44.1(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was found putting gasoline into a vehicle parked on the bullnose of a highway ramp at approximately 2:52 AM.

The Crown established that the defendant's blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit and that he had engaged in conduct constituting care or control of the vehicle.

The defendant was convicted on both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results to prove the second charge.

The accused applied to exclude the breath test results based on alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand a breath sample, there was a violation of the accused's section 10(b) rights regarding access to counsel of choice.

The court excluded the breath test results under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was convicted on the impaired driving charge but acquitted on the excess blood alcohol charge.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood following a motor vehicle incident on September 20, 2013.

The Crown established that the accused was driving during the operative two-hour window and that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable.

Although the statutory presumption of care or control was rebutted due to the vehicle being inoperable, the Crown proved de facto care or control based on the accused's ongoing intentional course of conduct with the vehicle in circumstances creating a realistic risk of danger.

The court found the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, evidenced by observations of impairment, alcohol on breath, stumbling, red-rimmed eyes, and impaired judgment in standing on a live traffic lane.

Both charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.