Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Brady Robertson’s convictions and 17-year sentence, rejecting a Charter challenge to the 5 ng/mL THC limit.
The appeal is dismissed. Reading the trial judge's Reasons as a whole, she applied a causation analysis focused on whether the accused's driving (not merely impairment) caused the collision and reasonably found on the evidence that the collision was unavoidable, creating a reasonable doubt on causation. Any apparent misstatement did not lead to a legal error that would materially alter the outcome and the factual findings were not plainly wrong.
Source excerpt
The trial judge erred: a record suspension under the Criminal Records Act does not prevent a sentencing court from considering a prior conviction for the purpose of imposing an increased mandatory penalty under s.320.19 where the Crown has complied with s.727 notice requirements; therefore the respondent was subject to the 30-day mandatory minimum for a second impaired driving offence and the appeal is allowed.
Source excerpt
The court found the AV alert admissible and reliable electronic evidence linking the alert time (3:57 a.m.) to the vehicle crash and therefore to the time operation ceased; the accused was the driver; the first breath sample at 5:21 a.m. (120 mg/100 ml) fell within the two‑hour offence window and proved the s.320.14(b) exceeding offence beyond a reasonable doubt; the s.320.14(a) impaired charge arose from the same facts and was conditionally stayed to avoid double punishment. The court further held that where s.320.31(4) is relied upon the Crown must prove the time of last driving within a re…
Source excerpt
Officers had objectively reasonable grounds to arrest for drug-impaired driving based on credible eyewitness accounts and police observations; the warrantless search and urine testing did not breach s.8; the delay awaiting an accredited evaluating officer and conducting the evaluation did not amount to arbitrary detention under s.9 because the demand was made and executed as soon as practicable; pre-arrest statements were not admitted for trial; on the admissible evidence the accused was proven guilty of driving while impaired by drugs under s.320.14 and not guilty of public mischief under s.…
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Mr. Goodman's judicial review of a 90-day IRP, finding the adjudicator reasonably rejected his burping, speech, and balance explanations.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown must disclose the target value of the alcohol standard, but need not prove it to rely on the presumption of accuracy.
The trial judge correctly interpreted s.320.2 as applying its minimums only where the offender had a prior conviction for the same bodily-harm category of offence; because the statutory text and scheme are unambiguous and Parliament did not deem simpliciter convictions to be earlier offences for s.320.2, a nine-month conditional sentence order was legally available and, despite peripheral errors (judicial notice and non‑consideration of s.320.22(e)), the sentence was fit and was therefore upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal of Yukon dismissed an application to appoint counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code, finding the appellant had not shown insufficient means.
The court acquitted Dilpreet Singh Sandhu of impaired and dangerous driving charges after finding the Crown failed to prove he was the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.
Explore more
