Canada Case Law

Singh v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court upheld the Adjudicator's decision as reasonable because the Adjudicator applied the correct standard and burden, cogently preferred the officer's detailed account corroborated by ASD status messages over vague and inconsistently detailed witness statements, and provided transparent reasons for discounting the witnesses, thereby justifying the conclusion that the petitioner failed or refused to provide a valid breath sample.

Source excerpt

• Immediate roadside prohibition
• Approved screening device
• Credibility assessment
• Standard of review
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

R. v. Laidlaw

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The arrest was unlawful because the available information supported only a reasonable suspicion of alcohol consumption, not objectively reasonable grounds to believe the accused had driven while impaired; the breathalyzer readings flowed from that unlawful arrest and, applying the Grant factors, must be excluded under s.24 of the Charter.

Source excerpt

• Arrest
• Reasonable grounds vs suspicion
• Asd vs breathalyzer demands
• Voluntariness of statements
• Exclusion of evidence under s.24

Read case analysis

MacKintosh v. R.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Court held that Parliament intended s.320.15(1), as amended by Bill C-46, to require only knowledge that a demand has been made and a failure or refusal to comply (subject to the preserved reasonable excuse defence), not proof of a subjective intention to refuse; the trial judge applied the correct legal standard and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Refusal to provide breath sample
• Mens rea
• Objective fault
• Reasonable excuse
• Bill c-46
• Criminal code s.320.15(1)

Read case analysis

R v Sasha D’Entremont-O’Connell

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The 2018 amendment to s.320.15(1) altered the mens rea: the Crown need only prove that the accused knew a demand had been made and failed to provide a suitable sample; the accused did not establish a reasonable excuse on the balance of probabilities and therefore the Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Source excerpt

• Failure to comply with breath demand
• Mens rea
• Reasonable excuse
• Approved screening device (asd)
• Device functionality

Read case analysis

R. v. Andre

Court

Yukon Court of Appeal

The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed Anthony Andre’s appeal from impaired driving convictions causing two deaths and bodily harm, finding no palpable error in the trial judge’s causation findings.

• Causation
• Standard of review
• Credibility assessment
• Burden of proof
• Expert evidence
• Appellate-review

Read case analysis

R.v. Thomas-Hodges

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Given the significant quantity of cocaine (30 g), the presence of a loaded 9 mm handgun in the vehicle, the offender's impairment and the public safety risk, denunciation and deterrence required a federal custodial sentence; a conditional sentence of less than two years was not appropriate despite mitigating IRCA factors, and a global concurrent custodial sentence of two years was imposed.

Source excerpt

• Denunciation and deterrence
• Irca (impact of race and culture assessment)
• Conditional sentence
• Parity and proportionality
• Ancillary orders

Read case analysis

R. v. Arsenault

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Arsenault was the driver, was impaired and refused breath demands, and that he possessed and knew of a loaded restricted firearm in his glove box while subject to a prior prohibition and without licence/registration; the firearm evidence was admissible and established the elements of the convicted firearms offences, while Counts 8 and 13 lacked proof and specified possessory counts overlapped and were conditionally stayed under Kineapple.

Source excerpt

• Possession of firearm
• Possession while prohibited
• Transporting firearm
• Impaired operation/driving while impaired
• Refusal to provide breath sample
• Search and seizure/inventory search

Read case analysis

R. v. Burgess

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The Crown proved mens rea: the ASD was operational, the officer credibly gave the accused repeated opportunities in accordance with training, the accused's explanation was not credible or sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, therefore the accused intentionally failed to comply with the demand under s.320.15(1).

Source excerpt

• Failure to comply with asd demand
• Mens rea for refusal offence
• Credibility assessment
• Reasonable excuse
• Mandatory alcohol screening
• Approved screening device operation

Read case analysis

R. v. Watts

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Court holds Crown can rely on s.320.35 presumption without proving a realistic risk of danger, defence failed to rebut presumption on balance of probabilities, accused is deemed in care or control and convicted under s.320.14(1)(b) (BAC over 80 mg/100 ml within two hours) but acquitted of impaired operation s.320.14(1)(a) because Crown did not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt without expert evidence.

Source excerpt

• Care or control
• Statutory presumption s.320.35
• Breath analysis
• Reasonable doubt

Read case analysis

R. v. T.M.

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Balancing the aggravating features (serious injury and BAC of 150 mg/100 mL) against significant mitigating and Gladue-type factors (severe childhood trauma, community support, employment history, low risk of reoffending and statutory five-year DMV revocation), the court concluded a custodial sentence would be excessive; purposes of sentencing can be met by a substantial fine and a tailored 24-month probation order with rehabilitative and restrictive conditions plus a 24-month driving prohibition.

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving causing bodily harm
• Denunciation and deterrence
• Gladue/cultural assessment
• Probation conditions
• Driving prohibition
• Mandatory minimum fines

Read case analysis