R. v. Barcardi
The evidence established that the officer formed a reasonable suspicion and immediately made the breath demand, so s.254(2) was complied with; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C44394
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Jose Bacardi
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 May 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Section 254(2) Compliance, Reasonable Suspicion, Breath Demand
- 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
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Jose Bacardi
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the officer complied with s.254(2) by making a demand immediately after forming a reasonable suspicion
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence established that the officer formed a reasonable suspicion and immediately made the breath demand, so s.254(2) was complied with; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Barcardi Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-05-05 Docket numbers C44394 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Gillese, Eileen E.; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060504 DOCKET: C44394 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – JOSE BACARDI (Appellant) BEFORE: GOUDGE, GILLESE AND LAFORME JJ.A. COUNSEL: Paul Slocombe for the appellant Shawn Porter for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: May 2, 2006 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice C. Mocha of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 29, 2004. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view the evidence is clear that the officer formed his reasonable suspicion and then made his demand immediately. Section 254(2) was complied with. The appeal is dismissed.