Over 80"; Conviction overturned on Summary Conviction; Leave to appeal refused; Leave to appeal ought not to be granted where decision not of significance to administration of criminal justice; Leave to appeal ought not to be granted where Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal clarifying law in interim; Criminal Code, s. 253(1)(b); Charter of Rights, s. 24(2).

Selected Case

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "over 80". An expert report was tendered at trial. The expert report spoke of "large quantities of alcoholic beverages" and "shortly prior to the incident". The trial judge noted that there was no evidence as to what those expressions meant. The Summary Conviction Appeal Court set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial. On further appeal, the order for the new trial was set aside and the acquittals entered by the trial judge were restored. This was not a case where the trial judge was entitled to consider the inherent unlikelihood that the accused would consume a specified amount of alcohol in a specified period. The trial judge was not prepared to draw the common sense inference because he did not have sufficient evidence to assess its exact implications. That conclusion was open on the record. R. v. Evans, 2010 CarswellOnt 35, 2010 ONCA 5 (Ont. C.A.).