R v Ginn

R v Ginn

On the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officer at the roadside (repeated lane swerving, extremely strong odour of alcohol at distance and up close, slurred speech, fumbling for documents, activation of wipers/high beams, bar bracelet and officer experience), the Crown proved on a balance of probabilities that the breath demand and arrest were reasonable under ss.8 and 9 of the Charter; the Crown also proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt (convictions entered; stay on impaired operation ordered).

Citation
2025 NSPC 47
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Meagan Ginn
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Operation and Over 80 / Voir Dire and Trial Decision
Outcome
Guilty on both counts; stay entered on the impaired operation charge
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Arrest, Breath Demand, Charter S.8, Charter S.9, Charter S.24(2) Exclusion, Driving Offences, Reasonable and Probable Grounds
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Evidence Search and Seizure Arrest Breath Demand Charter S.8 +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Meagan Ginn

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Operation and Over 80 / Voir Dire and Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police had sufficient grounds to make a breath demand under s.320.28(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (s.8 Charter issue)
  2. 2 Whether police had sufficient grounds to arrest for impaired operation under s.320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (s.9 Charter issue)
  3. 3 If Charter rights were breached, whether evidence should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officer at the roadside (repeated lane swerving, extremely strong odour of alcohol at distance and up close, slurred speech, fumbling for documents, activation of wipers/high beams, bar bracelet and officer experience), the Crown proved on a balance of probabilities that the breath demand and arrest were reasonable under ss.8 and 9 of the Charter; the Crown also proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt (convictions entered; stay on impaired operation ordered).

Court Disposition

Guilty on both counts; stay entered on the impaired operation charge

Orders

  • Stay entered on charge under s.320.14(1)(a) (impaired operation)
  • Conviction entered on charge under s.320.14(1)(b) (blood alcohol over 80 mg per 100 ml)