Sarah Khan

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol following a single-vehicle collision on January 14, 2024.

At trial, the court examined two issues: whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether police violated the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found insufficient evidence of impairment and determined that police breached the defendant's right to counsel by imposing an arbitrary time limit on accessing a lawyer and failing to inform the defendant of alternative options.

The breath test results were excluded as a remedy for the Charter breach, resulting in acquittals on both counts.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Jashandeep Bhandal on charges of impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample.

The court carefully analyzed circumstantial evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Bhandal was the driver of a single-vehicle crash.

The decision also confirmed that police had reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample, even if there was some hypothetical doubt about the driver’s identity.

The judgment applies key principles on circumstantial evidence, reasonable grounds for police demands, and the assessment of alternative theories.

This ruling addresses an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to an alleged unreasonable delay in a two-day drink driving trial.

The court analyzed the timeline against the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in R. v. Jordan, which sets an 18-month presumptive ceiling for trials in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The defendant had initially scheduled trial dates within the Jordan guideline but requested an adjournment and waived delay, resulting in a total delay exceeding 24 months.

The court found the waiver was informed and unequivocal, and that the defendant's actions caused the delay.

Consequently, the court dismissed the stay application, emphasizing that delays caused by the defence waiver do not constitute a breach of section 11(b).

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE check on April 21, 2016.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results showing blood alcohol levels of 168 and 145 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath samples on multiple Charter grounds, including allegations that the officer failed to properly calibrate the ASD device, failed to make the demand forthwith, failed to administer the test as soon as practicable, and failed to document reasons for rejecting an intermediate sample.

The court rejected all Charter challenges and found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 140 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.