Sean Michael Bradley

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with refusing to provide a breath sample.

The defendant sought to exclude evidence of his refusal based on alleged Charter violations regarding the right to be informed of the reason for detention and the right to counsel.

The court found the defendant's evidence to be internally inconsistent and contradicted by multiple Crown witnesses.

The court rejected the Charter application and found the defendant guilty of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused was found sleeping in the front passenger seat of his vehicle with the engine running in a strip club parking lot.

The Crown did not have the benefit of the presumption under section 258(1)(a) as the accused was not in the driver's seat.

The central issue was whether the elements of care or control had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically whether there was a realistic risk that the vehicle could have been put in motion or a change of mind in deciding to drive while impaired.

The trial judge found the accused's evidence regarding his plans to avoid driving home to be incredible and defying common sense, and concluded there was a realistic risk the accused would drive the vehicle while impaired.

The accused was charged with three counts: assault on Charmaine Mangaoang (his wife), uttering a death threat to Charmaine Mangaoang, and assault on Robbin Patrick MacDonald (a tenant).

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial involved conflicting testimony regarding domestic violence allegations and a physical altercation between the accused and the tenant.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts based on the credible testimony of the tenant and an independent witness, while rejecting the testimony of the accused and his wife as not credible and potentially collusive.

The offender was sentenced for breach of a conditional sentence order.

The offender failed to report to his supervisor as required by the terms of his conditional sentence.

The court found the breach was without reasonable excuse and imposed a custodial sentence of 20 days, with the conditional sentence order to resume upon release without modification.

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with conditional sentence terms and the deterrent effect of potential incarceration.

The accused was charged with operate over 80 following a traffic stop.

The Crown sought to rely on breath sample readings from an Intoxilyzer device.

The court found that the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights were breached with respect to facilitation of the right to speak to counsel of choice.

The police failed to adequately facilitate contact with counsel of choice and instead imposed duty counsel upon the accused.

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

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with fraud over $5,000 and public mischief for allegedly falsely reporting his motor vehicle stolen to his insurance company and police, receiving insurance proceeds of approximately $17,500, when he was actually involved in a fail-to-remain motor vehicle collision.

A production order was obtained for cellphone records registered to the defendant's girlfriend but used by the defendant.

The defendant brought a section 8 Charter application to exclude the evidence, arguing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cellphone records despite not being the registered owner.

The court found the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records but dismissed the application, holding that the production order was properly issued on reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed, and that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would be admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and Over 80 following a motor vehicle stop in Milton on May 26, 2012.

The defence brought a section 8 Charter application challenging whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving and demand breath samples.

The court found that the arresting officer's grounds were insufficient, relying on inconsistent and unreliable evidence from the officers regarding driving concerns.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence and dismissed both charges, emphasizing the importance of police note-taking and the proper role of coach officers in investigations.

The defendant was charged with two offences: speeding at 88 km/h in a posted 50 km/h community safety zone, and failing to surrender a motor vehicle permit upon demand by a police officer.

The trial proceeded over multiple dates with conflicting evidence from the defendant and the investigating officer regarding both the speed of the vehicle and whether the permit was actually surrendered.

The court found the defendant guilty of both charges.

The speeding charge was classified as an absolute liability offence, requiring only proof of the prohibited act.

The permit charge was classified as a strict liability offence, allowing for a due diligence defence, which the defendant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities.