W. Vincent Clifford

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on impaired driving charges.

The trial judge had found "bolus drinking" was in play, and excluded evidence of the respondent's weight, obtained without statutory or common law authority, under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings on bolus drinking and the s. 8 Charter breach, agreeing that compelling the respondent to be weighed without proper legal authority was a serious breach.

The court also upheld the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the need for police policy to be authorized by law and the importance of protecting a detainee's right against self-incrimination.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in blood causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, arising from a fatal head-on collision on Highway 17.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from three Ontario Provincial Police collision reconstruction officers: Constable Kelly (Level 3 Technical Traffic Collision Investigator), Constable Hewitt (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist), and Constable Kern (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist and regional lead).

The defence objected on grounds of bias, lack of independence, partiality, and lack of competence.

The court conducted an extensive voir dire on the admissibility of expert evidence, examining the independence, objectivity, and qualifications of each officer.

The Crown applied to cross-examine the accused, a police officer charged with sexual assault, on testimony he previously gave as a Crown witness in a related prosecution.

The Crown argued the prior testimony was voluntary because the accused was not under a court-issued subpoena, but rather an internal police notification.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused was compelled to testify in the prior proceeding due to his statutory duties under the Police Services Act and the internal police subpoena.

Therefore, his prior testimony was protected by section 13 of the Charter and could not be used to incriminate him or impeach his credibility.

The Crown brought a motion seeking a ruling permitting cross-examination of a police sergeant on his prior testimony given at a separate trial where he testified as a Crown witness.

The sergeant was subsequently charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the sergeant's prior testimony was compelled and therefore protected by section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court held that the testimony was compelled both because the sergeant was a compellable witness called by the Crown and because he was statutorily compelled to attend court under the Police Services Act and police policy.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that section 13 rights are diminished for police officers and dismissed the Crown's application.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for insubordination and breach of confidence, as well as the penalty of resignation or summary dismissal.

The charges arose from an unauthorized CPIC check on a surveillance vehicle involved in a joint forces investigation, and the subsequent disclosure of that information to an undercover officer.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the credibility assessments and factual determinations were reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The penalty of dismissal was also upheld given the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's lack of remorse, and the paramount importance of protecting the CPIC database.