S. Bradley

The appellant appealed convictions for refusal to provide a breath sample, impaired driving, and mischief under $5,000 arising from a single‑vehicle accident and subsequent conduct in a police cruiser and breath room.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s findings regarding whether the appellant intentionally refused a breath demand and whether her emotional state constituted a reasonable excuse.

The appeal court held that insufficient consideration had been given to the brevity of the officer’s questioning and the failure to warn the appellant of the legal consequences of refusal while she was crying uncontrollably.

The conviction for refusal to provide a breath sample was set aside and an acquittal entered.

The convictions for impaired driving and mischief and the sentence imposed were affirmed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for dangerous driving under s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, arguing the trial judge erred in finding identity beyond a reasonable doubt and provided inadequate reasons.

The appellant contended the trial judge improperly relied on the contents of a telephone statement to establish identity and that the circumstantial evidence permitted other reasonable inferences.

The appeal court held there was sufficient independent evidence on a balance of probabilities to admit the statement and that, when combined with other circumstantial evidence, the only rational inference was that the appellant was the driver involved in the incident.

The court also found the trial judge’s reasoning was apparent from the record and adequate for appellate review.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of domestic assault.

On the trial date, the complainant, who had been personally served with a subpoena, failed to attend.

The trial judge refused the Crown's applications for a material witness warrant and an adjournment, leading to an acquittal when no evidence was called.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to act judicially by relying on speculation and generalized assumptions about the complainant's willingness to testify and the seriousness of domestic violence.

A new trial was ordered.