Canada Case Law

R v Estabrooks

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

A ‘THC positive’ result on approved drug screening equipment calibrated to 25 ng/ml, when properly conducted and considered together with the officer’s observations and the established temporal pharmacokinetic link and supporting studies, can furnish objectively reasonable and probable grounds for a s.320.28(2)(b) blood demand; therefore the warrantless seizure and analysis of blood in this case was lawful and the evidence admissible.

Source excerpt

• Drug-impaired driving
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Approved drug screening equipment (adse)
• Blood demand under s.320.28(2)(b)
• Search and seizure
• Admissibility of forensic blood evidence

Read case analysis

R v Yeo

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Accepted the certified Intox EC/IR II results (170 mg% and 160 mg%, lowest 160 mg% conclusive under transitional Code provisions) and accepted Crown expert retrograde extrapolation adding accepted elimination rates (10–20 mg%/hr), yielding estimated BAC at accident time of 192–224 mg% which is well over legal limit; on totality accused’s conduct and elevated BAC established he was a significant contributing cause of the accident and Crown proved all elements of s.255(2.1) beyond reasonable doubt.

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving
• Over-80 blood alcohol offence
• Care or control
• Retrograde extrapolation of bac
• Asd and breathalyzer evidence
• Causation of accident

Read case analysis

R. v. Adams

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Adams operated a conveyance while impaired by a narcotic analgesic because (1) consistent eyewitness and police observations established erratic driving and impaired behaviour; (2) a certified DRE concluded impairment by a narcotic analgesic following the 12‑step evaluation; (3) forensic toxicology detected hydromorphone, oxymorphone and a clonazepam metabolite in the accused’s urine; and (4) the legislative presumption in s.320.31(6) supports causation; mens rea was satisfied by voluntary consumption with knowledge of warnings; conviction enter…

Source excerpt

• Drug-impaired driving
• Drug recognition evaluation (dre)
• Expert evidence admissibility
• Forensic urine analysis
• Legislative presumption s.320.31(6)
• Mens rea for impaired driving

Read case analysis

R. v. Pi

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed Pee Lee Pi’s appeal from his second degree murder conviction, holding there was no material misapprehension of evidence and the correct mens rea test was applied.

• Second degree murder
• Mens rea
• Intoxication defence
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Expert testimony evaluation
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

R. v. Gardner

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the booking officers' conduct constituted wanton or reckless disregard or a marked and substantial departure from the applicable standard of care in the PCF context, nor that their acts or omissions were a significant contributing cause of death; expert and circumstantial evidence supported that acute ethanol intoxication (BAC 0.367 g/100ml) was sufficient to account for death and that death occurred before the challenged false entries, so the accused were acquitted of criminal negligence causing death.

Source excerpt

• Criminal negligence
• Duty of care
• Causation
• Custodial cell checks (4 rs)
• Use and risks of spit hoods

Read case analysis

R. v. Baillie

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a conveyance was impaired by a drug because (1) there was no reliable evidence of erratic driving (alternative explanation: blown tires), (2) urine metabolites only show prior use and do not establish timing or impairment, (3) the certified DRE's opinion, while admissible and afforded weight, was not conclusive given the accused's admitted tolerance from daily cannabis use and inconsistencies, leaving a reasonable doubt.

Source excerpt

• Drug recognition evaluation (dre)
• Urine toxicology
• Burden of proof
• Tolerance to drugs
• Reasonable doubt

Read case analysis

R. v. England

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial judge found the accused not guilty on one sexual-assault count, but guilty of break and enter, sexual assault, and uttering threats on January 12, 2019.

• Sexual assault
• Break and enter
• Uttering threats
• Consent
• Intoxication defence
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. Al-Rawi

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Identity of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt by surveillance, witness evidence and the accused's admissions; the complainant's testimony that she did not consent was credible and consistent with intoxication and medical/toxicology evidence; the defence of honest but mistaken belief was excluded because the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent; therefore the accused is guilty of sexual assault.

Source excerpt

• Consent
• Identification
• Delay
• Credibility
• Expert evidence
• Chain of custody

Read case analysis

R. v Trainor Brown

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Because there was a realistic possibility of significant post-accident consumption (bolus drinking) supported by the presence of an open, mostly-empty bottle, the accused's testimony admitting post-crash drinking, and officer observations of intoxication, the Crown failed to disprove bolus drinking beyond a reasonable doubt; consequently the expert extrapolation could not be relied upon to prove BAC at time of driving and the accused was found not guilty.

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving
• Bolus drinking/post-accident consumption
• Presumption of identity (s.258)
• Expert opinion admissibility
• Section 8 charter (search and seizure)

Read case analysis

R. v. Patterson

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The trial judge did not err in refusing to qualify the proposed toxicology expert because the prosecution failed to put on record the expert's attestation that she understood and accepted the duty of impartiality and the voir dire record was insufficient to allow a proper inference; that discretionary ruling is entitled to appellate deference and the Crown's appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Expert witness qualification
• Bias and impartiality
• Admissibility of expert evidence
• Mohan test
• White burgess decision
• Breathalyzer extrapolation

Read case analysis