![W Z } W P ^ o ] } v v · 2020. 9. 24. · ^ ] } v õ W W Z r } ] } v U K µ r } ( r^ µ v U s } ] t / v Æ ( ] v Z } ] À ] } v W } µ r ] v o µ ] v P } µ r } ( r µ v v ] } v](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/60501b3e634f3c5bf340ac21/w-z-w-p-o-v-v-2020-9-24-v-w-w-z-r-v-u-k-r-r.jpg)
R. v. Azeez
2
Case Name: R. v. Azeez Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Anthony Azeez [2007] O.J. No. 5568 Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario E.A. Ready J. November 26, 2007. (1 para.) Charges: Section 253 Criminal Code of Canada - Over 80. Counsel: G. Hendry, Counsel for the Crown. M. Riddell, Counsel for the Defendant. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 E.A. READY J.:-- On your first argument, that would fail in this Court's estimation. I'm satisfied from the evidence of the witness that it was dark outside and he originally thought that it occurred between eight-thirty and nine p.m. Then he was cross-examined it was between eight and nine. But he thought for certain the accident was after eight-thirty to nine because he felt it was not dark at around 6:15 in the evening, given the whereabouts, the time of year, etcetera, and I accept that. Especially given the fact that the dispatch came in at about 8:55 and they're obviously reasonable that this is not instantaneous and that the individual indicated he - perhaps about five minutes after the accident happened he telephoned 911, so I'm satisfied that his evidence - that the Page 1
-
Upload
matthew-riddell -
Category
Documents
-
view
25 -
download
1
Transcript of R. v. Azeez
Case Name:
R. v. Azeez
BetweenHer Majesty the Queen, and
Anthony Azeez
[2007] O.J. No. 5568
Ontario Court of JusticeBrampton, Ontario
E.A. Ready J.
November 26, 2007.
(1 para.)
Charges: Section 253 Criminal Code of Canada - Over 80.
Counsel:
G. Hendry, Counsel for the Crown.
M. Riddell, Counsel for the Defendant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 E.A. READY J.:-- On your first argument, that would fail in this Court's estimation. I'msatisfied from the evidence of the witness that it was dark outside and he originally thought that itoccurred between eight-thirty and nine p.m. Then he was cross-examined it was between eight andnine. But he thought for certain the accident was after eight-thirty to nine because he felt it was notdark at around 6:15 in the evening, given the whereabouts, the time of year, etcetera, and I acceptthat. Especially given the fact that the dispatch came in at about 8:55 and they're obviouslyreasonable that this is not instantaneous and that the individual indicated he - perhaps about fiveminutes after the accident happened he telephoned 911, so I'm satisfied that his evidence - that the
Page 1
accident was more in the range of eight-thirty to nine p.m. is more accurate based upon the dispatchtime, the time that it took for him to finally decide to call 911 - and any delay that may haveoccurred in respect to dispatch getting through to the peace officer who is on the road. So thatargument fails. I'm satisfied that there is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the testswere taken with - the first was taken within two hours and that we're not anywhere close to 8:15 to8:20 in the evening when this counsel is suggesting this accident might have occurred before thattime. So that argument fails. However, there is absolutely no evidence before the Court that theindividual who is before the Court, Mr. Azeez, was ever read a breath sample demand after theofficer formed the opinion that he was operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit ofalcohol in his system. Because of that, and the provisions in Section 258, I have a certificate that issubject to further argument and both - it would be difficult to hold that one could find that there wasa presumption that at the time that he was operating this motor vehicle Mr. Azeez had theequivalent of 160 truncated and 140 milligrams percent of alcohol in his system and was over thelegal limit. That is because there was absolutely no evidence that these proceedings were taken as aresult of a demand and that's a prerequisite in Section 258 for the certificate going in and thepresumption applying. So, there is no evidence on that point and accordingly the presumption doesnot apply and I cannot find that he was over the legal limit at the time that he was operating hismotor vehicle. So the charge is dismissed.
qp/s/qlcct/qlcnt
Page 2
![v Z v ] v P rDz P ] } v À ] î ì^ } } u ] À ] } v ] v r µ ] v À ] À } v ] r µ u ... · } ] v v } u o o Ç P Ç Z î ò^ r µ ] µ ] ] v r r v v } } u Ç u Á v } ( ( X d }](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/602b16183c08e8497561ef9f/v-z-v-v-p-rdz-p-v-u-v-v-r-v-v-.jpg)
![í Æ v ] ] v r À ] } µ o ] À ] } v } ( v ] v v r u } ~ ^ Z ... · í í Æ v ] ] v r À ] } µ o ] À ] } v } ( v ] v v r u } ~^ Z P v µ u > X ] } µ ( } ]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5f4b3e64748a32139f7d45ec/-v-v-r-o-v-v-v-v-r-u-z-v-.jpg)
![INM DSLD Dectron Rev.1 · 2018. 7. 26. · W ] ] v P } v v ] } v t ' v o } v ] ] } v ' r í } v v ] v } v v ] } v v W r / v o o ] } v ' r í W } } o t , ] v P } v v ] } v ' r î K](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/61220a9102fa1b2c0a59ed6c/inm-dsld-dectron-rev1-2018-7-26-w-v-p-v-v-v-t-v-o-v-v.jpg)
![[Hizb-Australia.org] Shaykh Abdul Azeez Al-Badry; Struggle of a Martyr](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/55cf87f455034664618bdd91/hizb-australiaorg-shaykh-abdul-azeez-al-badry-struggle-of-a-martyr.jpg)
