Case Laws

R. v. Bingley is a Supreme Court of Canada decision dealing with Drug Recognition Expert evidence in drug-impaired driving cases. The Court confirmed that DRE evidence may be admitted, but the officer’s conclusions can still be challenged by the defence.

R. v. Ewanchuk is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case about consent in sexual assault cases. The Court confirmed there is no implied consent to sexual activity, an important principle when sexual assault allegations arise between spouses, partners or people in domestic relationships.

R. v. McRae explains that alleged threats must be considered in context, not simply by looking at the words in isolation. Surrounding circumstances can affect whether ambiguous words amount to a criminal threat and whether the accused intended them to be taken seriously.

A person charged with domestic assault may have their own history of abuse by their partner. R. v. Malott explains how evidence of an abusive relationship can be relevant when the accused relies on self-defence and the court considers their perception of danger.

In an impaired driving case, a police officer may give an opinion that a driver appeared impaired based on their observations. However, opinion evidence alone does not prove guilt. The Crown must still prove the impaired driving charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a care and control while impaired case, the Crown must prove that the accused actually had care or control of the vehicle. The court must carefully examine the circumstances before concluding that a person had sufficient control to support a conviction.

In a care and control while impaired case, being found in the driver’s seat does not necessarily prove guilt. The Crown must still prove there was a realistic risk that the vehicle could be put in motion and become dangerous.

Although R. v. Toews focused on care and control while impaired, the principle is important when the Crown alleges that an accused had control of a vehicle and created a realistic risk of danger. Courts must assess the actual circumstances, not simply the accused’s physical presence in or near the vehicle.

In a case of care and control while impaired, being found in the driver’s seat can create a legal presumption that the driver had the care and control of the vehicle while impaired. R. v. Appleby explains how that presumption may be challenged.

How reverse onus provisions work in criminal law and how presumptions can affect proof. R. v. Whyte (1988 SCC) is important in driving-related criminal cases because it deals with when the burden shifts to the accused and whether that shift is constitutional.

Supreme Court confirms that police may demand a roadside breath sample before allowing a driver to speak to a lawyer. R. v. Thomsen (1988 SCC) is one of the earliest cases explaining how the right to counsel works during roadside breath testing.

Police may briefly delay a call to a lawyer during roadside screening for impaired driving. Learn when your right to counsel begins, what officers can ask before an arrest, and why the timing of those steps may matter when fighting a DUI charge.

A failed breath test does not always give police grounds to demand a further breathalyzer test. In R. v. Woods, the Supreme Court of Canada examined what happened when police obtained a screening result more than an hour after a driver refused a roadside test.

You cannot be subjected to a mandatory financial penalty that violates the Charter. R. v. Boudreault (2018 SCC 58) confirmed that automatic victim surcharge orders can be unconstitutional if they create cruel and unusual punishment.

You cannot be convicted of criminal dangerous driving unless the Crown proves a marked departure from normal driving. R. v. Beatty confirms that a simple mistake is not enough.

Self-defence in domestic assault cases in Ontario may apply when an accused says they acted to protect themselves. R. v. Cinous explains when there is enough evidence for self-defence to be considered at trial.

R. v. Khill (2021 SCC 37) explains how Canadian courts assess self-defence, reasonable force, and the circumstances surrounding a confrontation, and why these principles can be important in domestic violence cases.

R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on breaching bail conditions. Learn what the Crown must prove, including knowledge or recklessness, and how the ruling affects breach charges in Canada.

In a Bail Hearing the Supreme Court confirmed that bail can be denied in serious cases to protect public confidence, but only after careful legal analysis.

The Supreme Court clarified when an accused can be denied bail to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

R. v. Myers is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on bail review and continued detention. Learn how the case changed bail reviews under section 525 of the Criminal Code and when continued detention must be reconsidered.

The Supreme Court of Canada clarified bail law across Canada, confirming that accused persons are entitled to the least restrictive form of bail release unless stricter conditions are clearly justified.

R. v. W.(D.) is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on credibility and reasonable doubt, explaining how courts assess conflicting testimony, including evidence given by an accused person.

A breathalyzer demand can be challenged when police do not have the required legal grounds. In a refuse breath test case, the Crown must establish that the breathalyzer demand was lawful before a refusal can result in a conviction.

Video evidence in impaired driving cases can challenge police observations, reveal inconsistencies and help determine whether police had lawful grounds for an arrest or breathalyzer demand.

R. v. Mok examines how Charter privacy rights apply during an impaired driving investigation and what can happen when police procedures violate those rights. The case considers whether evidence obtained during a DUI arrest can be excluded or the charges stayed because of a serious Charter breach.

When do the police have reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breathalyzer in an impaired driving investigation. The Court examined whether a “fail” on a roadside screening device is enough to justify a formal breath demand.

Canadian Case Law Summary

In R. v. Andrews, the Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed that impaired driving requires proof that the accused’s ability to drive was impaired — not merely evidence of alcohol consumption or slight signs of intoxication.