Sandra Kent

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, arguing that his s. 8 Charter rights were violated by an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand.

The appellant contended that the investigating officer lacked reasonable suspicion because he also considered a medical condition as a possibility.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that "reasonable grounds to suspect" involves possibilities, not probabilities, and the existence of an alternate possibility does not negate a reasonable suspicion of alcohol.

The trial judge's reasons were found sufficient and correct, and claims of misapprehension of evidence were rejected.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed following a guilty plea to criminal harassment under s. 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing judge imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months’ probation and declined to grant a conditional discharge.

On appeal, the court found the sentencing judge misdirected himself by requiring that a discharge be "in the public interest" rather than "not contrary to the public interest" under s. 730(1), and failed to consider the role of general deterrence in the analysis.

Given the relatively minor nature of the conduct and the offender’s lack of prior record, the court concluded that a conviction was unnecessary to achieve deterrence.

The conviction was set aside and replaced with a conditional discharge with the same probation terms.