Sarah Elizabeth Renaud

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving (third offence), assault with intent to resist arrest, driving while disqualified, and related offences arising from incidents on December 10, 2013 and December 16, 2015.

The accused had a significant criminal record including two prior impaired driving convictions and two prior dangerous driving convictions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 362 days in custody, reflecting the seriousness of the offences, the accused's recidivist nature, and the need for general deterrence.

The court also imposed a lifetime driving prohibition and a ten-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

The Crown presented evidence from a police officer and breath technician regarding the arrest and breath testing procedures conducted on September 9, 2014.

The defence challenged whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, arguing that delays in obtaining a breath technician resulted in the presumption of identity not applying.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the delay was reasonable and that the Crown could rely on the presumption of identity.

The court also considered a toxicologist's report and rejected the defence argument regarding bolus drinking.

The accused was found guilty of driving with excess alcohol.

The defendant was charged with impaired care and control and over 80 care and control following a report of a potential impaired driver at an LCBO.

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment by three police officers and breath test readings of 140 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the first breath test was completed within the two-hour statutory requirement due to uncertainty regarding the precise time of the offence.

Additionally, the court found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence, including inconsistencies in officer observations and the defendant's cooperative demeanor.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a suitable sample of breath into an approved screening device (ASD) pursuant to a demand under section 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally failed to provide a suitable sample after eight attempts, each resulting in an E0 message.

The defence argued the accused lacked mens rea, having genuinely attempted to provide a sample but been unable to do so due to various factors including emotional distress, interference from her boyfriend's confrontation with police, and the officer's premature withdrawal of the device.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the intentionality of the failure and also found the Crown failed to establish that the ASD demand complied with section 254(2) requirements.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual touching and sexual assault of a child complainant between September 1, 2004 and December 31, 2009.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the trial took place before a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The complainant, who was nine years old at trial, testified that she was touched inappropriately on two occasions during babysitting visits to the accused's home when she was approximately two or three years old.

The accused denied all allegations.

The judge applied the R. v. W.D. analysis and found that while the complainant's evidence had some credible features, it was subject to significant frailties including questionable memory of specific details from five or six years prior, a prior admission of fabricating stories for attention, and multiple discrepancies between her trial testimony and prior statements to police, preliminary inquiry evidence, and her mother's recollection.

The judge concluded that the totality of the evidence left reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving after being stopped by police following a report from two civilian witnesses who observed the accused's vehicle being driven in an erratic manner.

The Crown called evidence from the two civilian witnesses and two police officers.

The accused pleaded not guilty and challenged the credibility of the civilian witnesses.

The court found the civilian witnesses to be credible and reliable, and determined that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption.

The court found guilt on the impaired driving charge.