Terry P. Waltenbury

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of driving 'over 80'.

The trial judge had stayed the charge, finding that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand because he questioned the respondent about an open beer bottle found in the vehicle after the respondent failed a roadside screening test, thereby breaching the respondent's right to counsel and demonstrating doubt about the test's accuracy.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in equating the officer's doubt about the screening test's accuracy with a lack of reasonable and probable grounds to continue the arrest and breath demand.

The stay of proceedings was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained from a Blackberry following his arrest during a police investigation into cocaine trafficking.

The court found that the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds and therefore did not violate s. 9 of the Charter.

However, the police officer’s cursory examination of the Blackberry was not authorized by law because the officer mistakenly believed the search was permitted under a CDSA warrant rather than as a search incident to arrest, resulting in a breach of s. 8.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework from Grant, the court concluded that although the breach engaged significant privacy interests in cell phone data, the officer acted in good faith and the evidence was lawfully discoverable.

The societal interest in adjudicating serious gun-related charges on their merits outweighed the breach.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The appellants appealed convictions for resisting arrest and assaulting peace officers following a police response to a 9‑1‑1 call reporting a domestic disturbance.

They argued the police lacked lawful authority to enter their apartment and used excessive force during the arrest.

The appellate court reviewed the trial judge’s credibility findings and the legal framework governing warrantless entry in response to emergency calls.

Applying the principles from R. v. Godoy, the court held that exigent circumstances justified police entry to ensure the safety of occupants.

The trial judge’s acceptance of the police evidence and findings that reasonable force was used disclosed no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault entered by the Ontario Court of Justice arising from an altercation with a common-law partner.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the credibility analysis required by R. v. W.(D.) and failed to provide sufficient reasons as required by R. v. Sheppard.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge erred by failing to analyze the accused’s denial of a key allegation and by providing insufficient reasons explaining why the evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

Because credibility was central and the reasons did not permit meaningful appellate review, the conviction could not stand.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.