S.C. Armstrong

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a charge for failing to stop at a stop sign under section 136(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The justice of the peace dismissed the charge because the police officer had no independent recollection of the specific events and relied solely on his notes.

The appellate court found this was reversible legal error, as the officer's notes qualified as a record of past recollection recorded and were properly admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol in his system on November 11, 2011.

He brought an application under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have the charges stayed due to delay in trial.

The total delay from the date the information was sworn to the end of trial was approximately 15.5 months.

The court found that while some delay was neutral time and a small portion was attributable to the defence, the Crown was responsible for 6.5 months of delay due to an inexcusable systemic failure regarding videotape disclosure.

The accused suffered significant prejudice to his right to security of the person and his right to a fair trial.

The court granted the application and stayed the charges.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Charter.

The court found that the accused's section 8 and 9 rights were violated when he was handcuffed in the parking lot before the roadside screening test was administered.

The court excluded the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court also found a section 10(a) breach but noted it would not have excluded evidence on that basis alone.