Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences - SCJ

The Crown appealed an acquittal on an over-80 charge after the trial judge excluded breathalyzer readings based on multiple alleged s. 10(b) Charter breaches.

The appeal court held that the right to counsel was temporarily suspended during the roadside screening stage, rejected findings of pre-ASD and re-consultation breaches, and found that only a 16-minute post-arrest delay in re-reading the right to counsel remained.

Applying the Grant framework afresh, the court concluded that the single informational breach did not warrant exclusion of highly reliable breath evidence.

The acquittal was set aside, a conviction was entered on the over-80 count, and the mandatory minimum sentence was imposed.

The appellant appealed a 20-year driving prohibition imposed in 2009 following guilty pleas to care and control over 80mg and breach of probation.

The appellant had an extensive record of drinking and driving offences spanning over 40 years.

The appeal was brought over five years after sentencing.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found no palpable or overriding error by the sentencing judge, noting the appellant's record and the fact that he had been convicted of another impaired driving offence in 2014 while the appeal was pending.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was found asleep in the driver's seat of her vehicle and subsequently blew over the legal limit.

At trial, she was convicted of having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired, failing to rebut the presumption under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly assessed her credibility against a reasonable person standard.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference and no material error was made.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the test for impairment and failed to consider evidence consistent with non-impairment.

The appellant had been pulled over for driving 138 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, had bloodshot eyes, and smelled of alcohol.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no errors in assessing the evidence and that any degree of impairment is sufficient for a conviction.

The appellant, a pub co-owner, appealed his summary conviction for assault causing bodily harm after pushing a patron off a barstool.

The appellant argued the trial judge reversed the burden of proof, misapplied the law of self-defence, applied an uneven standard of scrutiny to witnesses, and engaged in speculative reasoning.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility, correctly analyzed self-defence, and based his findings of force on the evidence.

The appellant appealed her summary conviction for driving 'over 80', alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

She argued that trial counsel failed to request maintenance and calibration records for the approved instrument and that his failings caused adjudicative unfairness.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel provided reasonable professional assistance by retaining an expert, considering defences, and holding the Crown to its burden of proof, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for committing an indecent act and dangerous driving.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant of the indecent act based on a perceived legal presumption that intent to act wilfully arises when the act is seen by another person.

The appeal court found this to be a legal error, as no such presumption exists, and ordered a new trial on the indecent act charge.

The appeal against the dangerous driving conviction was dismissed, as the trial judge reasonably concluded the appellant's driving in heavy fog was a marked departure from the standard of care.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on an 'Over 80' charge.

The trial judge had excluded the breath test results under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding a s. 8 breach because the arresting officer failed to turn his mind to the issue of mouth alcohol before administering an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in concluding the officer's grounds could not be assessed objectively, materially misapprehended the evidence by interrupting the Crown's re-examination, and erred in her s. 24(2) Grant analysis by drawing unwarranted inferences about police training.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his language barriers, physical limitations, and alternative explanations for his erratic driving.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found no misapprehension of evidence, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the totality of the evidence, including police and civilian witness testimony, and that the findings of fact were reasonably supported.

The appeal was dismissed.

Summary conviction appeal arising from a road rage incident involving convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in the findings of guilt and in refusing to stay the charges after finding a s. 7 Charter breach based on excessive force by an off-duty police officer.

The appeal court held that the trial judge misstated and misapplied the W.(D.) framework and failed to properly address the Crown's burden to disprove self-defence on the assault count.

Because the appellant's roadside state of mind was linked to the driving conduct, the court ordered a new trial on both counts rather than a limited retrial.

The stay issue was left to the trial judge if the Crown proceeds on the new trial.

Summary conviction appeal from an impaired driving conviction under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the investigating officer arbitrarily detained him and unlawfully searched him when the officer stopped his vehicle while looking for another individual suspected of trespass and driving under suspension.

The appeal court held the officer had articulable cause and reasonable grounds to detain and question the driver based on the specific location, vehicle description, and surrounding circumstances, and that the subsequent arrest for impaired driving was supported by reasonable and probable grounds.

No breach of ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter was established, and the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) in any event.

On a summary conviction sentence appeal arising from a road rage assault, the appellant challenged a no-weapons probation condition and a five-year firearms prohibition imposed after a conditional discharge.

The court admitted fresh evidence concerning the appellant’s competitive shooting activities, firearm ownership, training, and post-sentence completion of anger management, applying the Palmer framework flexibly in the interests of justice.

The court held the sentencing judge applied the proper public safety test under s. 110 of the Criminal Code and that both the probation term and firearms prohibition remained reasonable despite the fresh evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, except that the appellant was given 30 days to lawfully transfer or surrender firearms and ammunition.

The applicant sought Charter relief arising from a brief roadside stop during a police search for escaped youths.

The court held the officers had articulable cause to stop the truck to determine whether its occupants were the missing youths, and that the detention was justified under the common law investigative detention power.

After the officers observed the driver switch seats with a rear passenger, the court found there were fresh grounds for a regulatory detention and licence inquiry under the Highway Traffic Act.

Although the Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach and abandoned reliance on the applicant's admission, the application was dismissed.

On a summary conviction appeal from convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from a nightclub altercation, the appellant challenged both the adequacy of the trial reasons and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The court held that the trial judge failed to explain how exculpatory eyewitness evidence was treated, failed to explain how equivocal recognition evidence from grainy surveillance video established identity, and referred to legal doctrines that had no clear application to the evidentiary record.

After independently reviewing the surveillance footage and the totality of the evidence, the court concluded that no properly instructed trier could reasonably find identity proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample arising from erratic operation of a tractor trailer followed by a civilian witness into a truck stop.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly inferred identity and care and control from circumstantial evidence, relying on alternative explanations such as a passenger or attendant.

The appeal court held that alternative theories not grounded in evidence were speculative, and that the totality of the evidence supported the finding that the appellant was the driver.

The court also held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand even apart from proof beyond a reasonable doubt of identity.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

He argued the trial judge erred regarding the standard of proof for a s. 8 Charter breach, the lawfulness of the police officer entering his driveway, the timing of the breath tests, and the failure to find arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the officer was lawfully on the driveway under an implied invitation, the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable, and although the trial judge erred in inferring the reasons for the appellant's continued detention, a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application to exclude breath sample evidence.

The appellant contended the trial judge gave insufficient reasons, misapprehended evidence regarding the officers' reasonable grounds for the breath demand, and erred in the section 24(2) analysis.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the officers had reasonable grounds based on the appellant's driving, odour of alcohol, and unsteadiness.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mgs.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his evidence regarding his alcohol consumption and in finding that the roadside screening demand was made forthwith.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge.

The court also held that the 13-minute delay for the arrival of the screening device was reasonable, and even if a section 10(b) Charter breach occurred, the breath sample evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2).

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to arrest him for impaired driving and make a breath demand, asserting the officer only had a suspicion.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the officer's observations of the appellant's driving, behaviour, and physical symptoms provided an objectively reasonable basis to believe his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol, arguing that his Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) were breached during a traffic stop.

The trial judge had found the evidence of the appellant and the arresting officer equally credible, concluding the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving a Charter breach on a balance of probabilities.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to find both witnesses equally credible, provided sufficient reasons for her decision, and made findings of fact supported by the evidence.