Thomas Hicks

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting breath sample evidence obtained in breach of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The trial judge had found the roadside breath demand violated the appellant's Charter rights because the officer lacked objectively reasonable suspicion, but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter applying the R. v. Grant framework.

On appeal, the sole issue was whether the trial judge erred in finding the first stage of the Grant test favoured admission.

The appeal court found the trial judge did not improperly equate the officer's conduct with good faith, but rather assessed the totality of police conduct including respectful treatment and diligence in facilitating s. 10(b) rights, and upheld the s. 24(2) analysis as reasonable and well-supported.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and applied unequal scrutiny to the defence and Crown evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the trial judge made minor mistakes regarding the evidence, these misapprehensions did not play an essential role in the conviction and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The court also held that the trial judge properly scrutinized both the Crown and defence evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, challenging the dismissal of his s. 8 Charter application and arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to give adequate reasons.

The appeal focused on whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and make a breath demand under s. 254(3).

The court reviewed the trial record and applicable authorities regarding sufficiency of reasons and the standard of review for findings of fact and legal conclusions.

It held that the trial judge’s reasons were adequate and that the officer’s observations of driving behaviour, odour of alcohol, demeanour, and physical appearance supported both subjective and objective grounds for arrest.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s reasoning or application of the law.