Canadian criminal law case law consists of court rulings and decisions from past judicial hearings and appeals.
These precedents guide courts and judges to interpret laws, especially when similar circumstances arise with a case before them.
If a current case closely resembles one with past withdrawn charges, the same legal reasoning should apply. This process ensures that similar cases receive consistent treatment.
In R. vs White the case questioned the admissibility of her statements to police, (mandated by the Motor Vehicle Act), in her criminal trial. This pivotal decision addresses the clash between the duty to report under provincial law and the right against self-incrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
R v. Stellato” is a decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal.
This case is crucial in understanding the concept of “care or control” of a vehicle. It ruled that a person does not necessarily have to be driving to be in care or control. Simply having the potential or ability to set the vehicle in motion can be enough.
In the Canadian case R. v. S. (W.D.), the Supreme Court set rules for how juries should decide who to believe in trials where different witnesses tell different stories.
The Court said that if jurors believe the accused’s story, or if they have doubts after hearing it, they shouldn’t find the accused guilty. This case made it clear that it’s always up to the prosecution to prove someone’s guilt, not for the accused to prove their innocence.
In the case of R. v. Andrews: The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in not properly assessing whether the accused’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired, distinguishing between general impairment and impairment specifically related to driving ability.
The court emphasized that any level of impairment affecting driving ability could warrant a conviction under section 253(a) of the Criminal Code.
In R. v. Bernshaw, the police officer did not have reasonable grounds for a roadside breathalyzer demand since the “fail” result could be inaccurate due to recent alcohol consumption.
The BC Court of Appeal acquitted him, stating the officer couldn’t have reasonably believed an offence was committed based on the screening test’s unreliability. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed a subsequent Crown appeal, restoring the conviction, holding that without evidence of test unreliability, the “fail” was enough for reasonable grounds to demand a breathalyzer
Peterson was arrested for impaired driving on the Danforth when his behavior caught the attention of police officers due to his vehicle’s slow speed and weaving within its lane.
Subsequent Intoxilyzer tests at the police station revealed that his blood alcohol concentration was significantly over the legal limit, leading to an additional charge of driving with a BAC over 80. The defence raised several Charter-related issues during the trial, particularly focusing on unreasonable search and seizure and the right to counsel, which played a pivotal role in the case’s outcome.
In the R. v. Stankewich, 2006 ABPC 11 case, the accused faced two charges: impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit (“over 80”).
During the trial, the Crown conceded that the impaired operation charge could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, leading to a not guilty verdict on that count. For the “over 80” charge, Stankewich’s defence centered on “evidence to the contrary,” challenging both the presumptions of identity and accuracy of the blood alcohol readings.
Consequently, Stankewich was also found not guilty of the “over 80” charge. The case highlights the critical role of witness credibility and expert testimony in DUI cases, especially when contesting the accuracy of breathalyzer results.
In the case of R. v. Stark, 2005 BCPC 336, Kevin Stark faced charges of impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.
During the trial, the main issue was whether the police officer had reasonable and probable grounds, to demand a breathalyzer test. Due a lack of clear subjective belief by the officer, the court concluded that the demand for the breathalyzer was not properly made, leading to Stark’s acquittal of the charge of refusing to comply with a breathalyzer demand.
In the case of R. v. Mok: Mok was arrested for impaired driving and detained in a police cell with video surveillance.
She was recorded using the toilet, and the footage captured a full frontal view of her, which she argued was humiliating and a breach of her privacy. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice agreed that her right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated.
Julia Davis
2 days ago
★★★★★ It was my fault, with the kids and everything else going on, I put a cosmetic on top of my purse and then forgot about it as I checked out. The security didn’t see it as a small oversight from a busy mother. Nick took care of everything, didn’t have to appear in court, charges were dropped, Thank you so much
Carlos Villarreal
4 days ago
★★★★★ I had never been accused in my life. Nicolás and his team guided me through the whole process, with good customer service and impeccable results. They are very professional and experienced. Great Lawyer, Highly recommended
Olena Kuchuryan
7 days ago
★★★★★ My husband was charged with impaired driving and over 80. We felt totally hopeless. We saw a bunch of criminal lawyers for initial consultation, but only after meeting with Nicholas Charitsis and Vadim Paskaru we could see that they would do whatever it takes to win our case. It was a difficult case, but Nicholas and Vadim were with us every step of the way, supporting us, explaining next steps, always answering our questions. They were very easy to get in touch with whenever we needed them. As a result of their work, the impaired driving and over 80 charges were withdrawn. My husband ended up with a careless driving ticket, no criminal record. We are very grateful to this amazing team of knowledgeable and skilled criminal lawyers. We would recommend them to anyone who is in trouble and does not know what to do.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
