S. R. Clark

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The central issue was whether the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated when the officer did not wait for a second consultation with duty counsel before obtaining the second breath sample.

The defendant became distressed after the first breath sample and expressed confusion about legal advice received, requesting to speak with counsel again.

The officer placed a call to duty counsel but did not wait for a callback before proceeding with the second sample.

The court found no Charter violation occurred and admitted the breath sample evidence, resulting in a conviction.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control and over 80 care or control after being found asleep in his vehicle with the engine running in a parking lot.

The defendant claimed he had no intention to drive because he had called a friend to pick him up and fell asleep while waiting.

The Crown relied on the statutory presumption under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant's evidence regarding his plan was not credible and that he failed to rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities.

Even if the presumption had been rebutted, the court found the Crown proved actual care or control beyond a reasonable doubt based on the realistic risk the defendant could change his mind and drive while impaired.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The central issue was whether the police violated the defendant's Charter right to counsel under section 10(b) by failing to facilitate access to private counsel and instead defaulting to duty counsel.

The defendant also challenged whether the breath samples were obtained as soon as practicable.

The court found no Charter breach, as the defendant was asked if he had a specific lawyer and clearly declined, subsequently agreeing to speak with duty counsel.

The court also found the breath tests were administered as soon as practicable.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop on September 2, 2012.

A police officer observed the defendant's vehicle exhibiting poor driving behavior on the Queen Elizabeth Way and conducted a traffic stop.

The officer observed various indicators including glassy eyes, an odour of alcohol on the defendant's breath, unsteadiness on her feet, and difficulty putting on high-heeled shoes.

The defendant admitted to consuming one glass of wine approximately two hours earlier.

The officer arrested the defendant for impaired operation without administering an approved screening device.

The defendant challenged the arrest on Charter grounds, alleging the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds and that her detention was arbitrary.

The court found, by the barest of margins, that the officer did not have objectively tenable grounds to make the breath demand and dismissed both charges.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and refusal to provide a breath sample following a motor vehicle incident on March 17, 2011.

The Crown alleged the defendant drove erratically on Highway 427, struck a curb, and entered a residential driveway.

Police responded to a 911 call, attended the residence, and observed signs of impairment.

The defendant was arrested and taken to the police station where she made numerous attempts to provide breath samples but failed to provide a suitable second sample.

The defendant challenged the police entry into her home and the validity of the breath demand.

The court found no Charter breaches, that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, that the defendant was impaired, and that she intentionally failed to provide suitable breath samples.