Seeta Scully

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Crown withdrew the impaired charge at the close of its case.

The trial proceeded on the failure to remain charge.

The Crown and defence conceded that the actus reus was established.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's conduct was accompanied by an intention to escape civil or criminal liability.

The court found that the accused's post-accident conduct—including parking behind a building, driving away from the scene, passing by a police station without stopping, and continuing to drive away—demonstrated an intent to escape liability.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that he had changed his mind and intended to return to the scene.

The accused was found guilty.

A 17-year-old accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference after engaging in sexual activity with a 12-year-old complainant.

The sole issue was whether the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age pursuant to section 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused asked the complainant her age and she stated she was 16.

The complainant presented herself as older through her appearance, behavior, social circle, and online presence.

Upon learning her true age, the accused immediately terminated the relationship.

The court acquitted the accused on both counts, finding he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain age and the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not meet his obligations under section 150.1(4).

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood following a traffic stop on May 11, 2012.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on three grounds: (1) that video surveillance of his consultation with duty counsel violated his Charter right to private consultation; (2) that there was insufficient evidence the breath samples were taken pursuant to a demand under section 254(3); and (3) that there were insufficient grounds for arrest and the breath demand.

The court found no Charter violation regarding the video surveillance, rejected the demand argument, and found reasonable grounds for the arrest.

However, the court concluded that while the evidence supported conviction on the exceed 80 charge, it fell short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the impaired driving charge.