COLLISION - STATEMENTS BY SUSPECT DRIVER AND OBTAINING HOSPITAL RECORDS

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Mr. Murray's conviction for "over 80" causing bodily harm. Counsel will find this decision useful as it reviews the way the hospital blood sample results were introduced at trial through the lab technician.  R. v. Murray, 2013 ONCA 173

For more details, the trial decision is found at R. v. Murray, 2011 ONSC 3735.  

An earlier ruling, R. v. Murray, 2011 ONSC 2537, addressed the following investigative issues that often arise in cases where a collision has occurred :

Are some or all of the statements of the accused following the motor vehicle accident admissible at trial? (statements to ambulance attendants, statements before caution and after caution (in hospital), Highway Traffic Act accident report statements (in hospital)).

Are some or all of the statements of the accused admissible to support an application for a search warrant for the production of the hospital records?

A seperate earlier ruling, R. v. Murray, 2011 ONSC 2538, considered a rare Crown application to introduce an out of court statement from the now deceased mother of the accused in which she stated that "I certainly wasn't" driving the car.  She was 90 years old at the time of the collision.

SENTENCE - FIVE YEAR JAIL SENTENCE FOR 73 YEAR OLD ACCUSED

Mr. Cantelo was 73 years old when he was being sentenced for impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.  He was sentenced to four years jail for the impaired causing death charge and one year consecutive for failing to remain.  He was also prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for 10 years.  R. v. Cantelo, 2013 PESC 1

SENTENCE - CURATIVE DISCHARGE

48 year old Mr. Almassey applied for a curative discharge at his sentencing, which was for two exceed .08 charges and a charge of breaching a recognizance by consuming alcohol.  He had eight prior drinking and driving related offences. The curative discharge was granted and he was placed on a two year probation order, which focused on alcohol assessment and treatment.  He was also prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for three years.  The Court referred to an earlier Saskatchewan case in its decision : In some cases the evidence adduced may indicate that appropriate therapy or curative treatment will probably result in the accused overcoming his problems with alcohol. If such is the case it is probably in the best interests of society to take that route because such a solution is clearly preferable to repeated incidents of impaired driving which are not deterred by jail terms imposed on a person suffering from chronic alcoholism. In such cases society is only protected when the offender is in jail. In any given case the public interest may best be served by curative treatment as long as proper safeguards are imposed. R. v. Almassey, 2013 SKQB 19

SECTION 10(B) - ACQUITTAL SET ASIDE AS POLICE PROPERLY COMPLIED WITH ACCUSED'S RIGHT TO CALL A LAWYER

When Mr. McLeod was brought back to the Saskatoon Police Service station for breath samples the investigating officer asked him if he had spoken to a lawyer, which he had not. Mr. McLeod said he wanted to speak to a lawyer but he did not have one.  The officer said he could contact a friend or family member to provide the name of a lawyer but also informed him that he could call Legal Aid, which is what Mr. McLeod did.  He was acquitted at trial as the Court concluded that Legal Aid was called so quickly as to take other options away. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, stating that the police had not breached Mr. McLeod's section 10(b) rights. R. v. McLeod, 2013 SKCA 28

REMOVAL OF BRA RESULTS IN CONVICTION BEING SET ASIDE

After York Regional Police officers arrested Ms. Lee for impaired operation of a motor vehicle, they took her to the local police station for breathalyzer tests.  When a pat-down search conducted at the station revealed that she was wearing an underwire bra, she was told to remove it.  In the presence of a female police officer, Ms. Lee took off her shirt and sweater along with her bra.  As a result, her breasts were exposed for a brief period of time. She was convicted at trial but her appeal was allowed as the Court concluded that the trial judge had failed to correctly apply the following test: whether the police had reasonable and probable grounds for concluding that a strip search was necessary in the particular circumstances of the appellant’s arrest. R. v. Lee, 2013 ONSC 1000

The Court in R. v. Bouchard, 2011 ONCJ 610 (a case reviewed in this blog on January 7, 2012) reached a similar conclusion.