Thaddeus Ofiara

The defendants were charged with sexual assault.

The Crown sought to admit expert toxicologist evidence regarding the effects of "date rape" drugs, consistent with the complainant's symptoms of incapacitation, despite no direct evidence of drug administration.

The defence objected, arguing irrelevance due to the absence of a drug charge and late disclosure of new testimonial details.

The court ruled the expert evidence admissible, finding it relevant to the issue of consent and the complainant's incapacitation, even without knowing the exact drug or its administration method.

The court noted that late disclosure, if remedied by adjournment, affects weight rather than admissibility.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the resulting 18-month sentence.

The Crown's case at trial relied entirely on circumstantial forensic evidence, including the presence of the appellant's DNA on the complainant's underwear.

The appeal court found the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable, as he drew impermissible inferences not supported by the evidence and failed to provide sufficient reasons explaining his credibility findings and rejection of the appellant's exculpatory statement.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on an 'over 80' charge.

The trial judge had excluded the Intoxilyzer results under s 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the arresting officer should not have arrested the respondent without first administering a roadside breath test, despite having reasonable grounds for an approved instrument demand.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a proper s 24(2) analysis.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the police conduct was in good faith, the breath demand was minimally intrusive, and the evidence was highly reliable and crucial to the case.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a conviction entered.

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

At trial, the judge excluded the results of the accused's breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the arresting officer should not have arrested the accused without first administering a roadside screening test.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to conduct a proper Grant analysis.

Applying the three-pronged Grant test, the court concluded that the police conduct was in good faith, the breath samples were minimally intrusive, and the evidence was highly reliable and essential to the truth-seeking function of the trial.

The breath sample evidence was ruled admissible, the acquittal was set aside, and a conviction was entered.