R. v. Ademaj
The Court agreed with Durno J. and held, following R. v. MacPherson, that it is not necessary for an officer making an 'alert' demand to know or believe the person was operating or in care and control of the vehicle; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C37104
- Parties
- Appellant: Avni Ademaj; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 April 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal to Court of Appeal (from Summary Conviction Appeal Court)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Care and Control, Alert Demand, Driving Under the Influence, Precedent and Stare Decisis
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Avni Ademaj
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to Court of Appeal (from Summary Conviction Appeal Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an officer making an 'alert' demand must know or believe the person was operating or was in care and control of the vehicle
Ratio Decidendi
The Court agreed with Durno J. and held, following R. v. MacPherson, that it is not necessary for an officer making an 'alert' demand to know or believe the person was operating or in care and control of the vehicle; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Ademaj Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2003-04-11 Docket numbers C37104 Judges Doherty, David H.; Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Laskin, John Ivan Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20030411 DOCKET: C37104 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. AVNI ADEMAJ (Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY,WEILER and LASKIN JJ.A. COUNSEL: James Silver for the appellant Kim Crosbie for the respondent HEARD: April 8, 2003 On appeal from the ruling of Justice Bruce Durno of the Superior Court of Ontario Summary Conviction Appeal Court dated September 17, 2001. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We have not been asked to reconsider our prior authorities on this question of law. Counsel has attempted to distinguish those authorities from this case. [2] We agree with Durno J.'s analysis of those authorities. As we read those authorities, it is not necessary for the officer making the "alert" demand to know or believe the person to whom the demand is made was operating, or was in care and control of the vehicle: see R. v. MacPherson, [2000] O.J. 4777, paras. 4-6. [3] We would grant leave to appeal but would dismiss the appeal.