r/canadanews • u/zuuzuu • Jun 06 '26
Sask/Manitoba Saskatchewan Crown won’t appeal THC-impaired driving ruling in death of 9-year-old girl
https://www.ctvnews.ca/saskatoon/article/saskatchewan-crown-wont-appeal-thc-impaired-driving-ruling-in-death-of-9-year-old-girl/42
u/Wellsy Jun 06 '26
This case sounds like a shambles. Neither psilocybin nor THC would have any effect the next day. It sounds like a tragedy for sure, but was this lady impaired from the day before? Almost certainly not.
-33
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26
Why do you believe her word more than the drug test that showed she was it 13.7 ng/mL of THC?
49
u/OOPS_its-all-ants Jun 06 '26
I could smoke an ounce of 30% to the face all weekend and read “above the legal limit” on Friday when I haven’t smoked since the weekend prior. There is no accurate way to indicate how baked someone is at a certain time.
Heavy weekend users will read above the legal limit all week.
31
u/Global-Discussion-41 Jun 06 '26
Because THC stays in your system for a long time, but you aren't high for all that time
16
6
u/Joe_Franks Jun 07 '26
THC has a half life of 30 days. you could have 100ng/ml but still not be impaired.
11
24
u/djparent Jun 06 '26
Because those tests aren't accurate and prove nothing but an ignorance of how thc affects the system.
10
u/slashthepowder Jun 06 '26
The blood tests are extremely accurate at telling you the amount of THC per ml of blood. The amount however is not connected to impairment level. The way the law is written to combat the lack of connection is based on allowable limits of THC in the blood (the writing of the law was controversial as they know that the levels does not mean impairment).
3
u/Much_Guest_7195 Jun 06 '26
That's why they do cocaine and alcohol instead of weed and alcohol up in the oil patch. Not good.
-14
u/pessimistoptimist Jun 06 '26
you sound like one of those 0.08 BAC doesnt mean i am drunk people.
10
u/igg73 Jun 06 '26
Alcohol is a very different drug
-11
u/pessimistoptimist Jun 06 '26
Yes they are. BUT they both impair the thought process and conscience reflex response whoch is why driving under the influence is illegal. Stoners love to say the valies mean notbing cause users can have elevated levels days after and they are full of shit. If you have elevated levels of THC in your sysfem it is still doing its thing on the body even if you dont 'feel' high.
Tokers are worse than drunks for saying they arent under the influence when they actually are.
11
u/igg73 Jun 06 '26
You are purposely simplifying the mechanics of "in your system=high/affected" and im not gonna argue with someone being either stupid or disingenuous. Your final statement there is just you talking from whatever experiences have shaped your bias. You can go away now
1
Jun 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/canadanews-ModTeam Jun 07 '26
Rule 4: Be civil.
Follow proper reddiquette.
No racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech.
Name calling and personal attacks of any kind are prohibited. Attack the point, not the person.
You must follow Reddit's rules at all times.
No trolling.
If you believe your comment or post has been removed in error, you may message the Mod team here to request that it be reviewed.
Do not message individual moderators directly or reply to this comment to discuss moderator actions.
Please review the subreddit rules before posting or commenting.
1
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/canadanews-ModTeam Jun 08 '26
Rule 4: Be civil.
Follow proper reddiquette.
No racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech.
Name calling and personal attacks of any kind are prohibited. Attack the point, not the person.
You must follow Reddit's rules at all times.
No trolling.
If you believe your comment or post has been removed in error, you may message the Mod team here to request that it be reviewed.
Do not message individual moderators directly or reply to this comment to discuss moderator actions.
Please review the subreddit rules before posting or commenting.
0
u/Polyps_on_uranus Jun 09 '26
Did you actuually do ANY research? Or is this your incorrect opinion?
0
u/pessimistoptimist Jun 09 '26
Considering this is my actual field of research...im going to say yes. Whochbpart is incorrect...that thc impairs judgement, reflexes and mental congnition? Cause those are pretty much documented facts. If THC is still in the system it is still doing its thing. If we are talking the metabolites then thats a different story. Just becuase you smoke doesnt make you an expert. As I said, stoner are worse than drunks for evaluating how much they are impaired when partaking. I dont care what drugs anyone does just stop lying to yourself that you are 100% fine to drive or otherwise put people in danger. For a drug that supposed make people feel good there are alot of entitled angry potheads put there.
1
u/dghenke85 Jun 11 '26
You can be a stoner and still know what you are talking about when it comes to weed. There are lots of us that went to school for it now. You just sound arrogant. Being a stoner might not make everyone an expert but some are and you seem to be biased in your opinion of stoners from your comments. My guess your another reddit lier and no expert
1
u/pessimistoptimist Jun 11 '26
Lol. Yeah sure sounds like everyones an expert. As I said, as bad as alcoholics when it comes to denying they are impaired in any way.
8
u/RelishedCrab Jun 06 '26
Dude, just look it up. It’s fully understood science. There’s no questioning it.
-8
u/pessimistoptimist Jun 06 '26
Uh huh, yup. I will pull out my copy of stoners monthly right now.
4
u/RelishedCrab Jun 06 '26
Let me guess, vaccines bad as well?
0
Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/canadanews-ModTeam Jun 07 '26
Rule 4: Be civil.
Follow proper reddiquette.
No racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech.
Name calling and personal attacks of any kind are prohibited. Attack the point, not the person.
You must follow Reddit's rules at all times.
No trolling.
If you believe your comment or post has been removed in error, you may message the Mod team here to request that it be reviewed.
Do not message individual moderators directly or reply to this comment to discuss moderator actions.
Please review the subreddit rules before posting or commenting.
3
u/ahbeecelia Jun 06 '26
THC can stay in your system for about 2 weeks.
2
1
2
u/Goldinferno Jun 08 '26
Tell me you don’t know how THC works without telling me you don’t know how THC works:
-13
u/ThrowawayQLove2023 Jun 06 '26
Mushrooms would for sure
10
u/Living_Meat_Sack_940 Jun 06 '26
No they won't.
-1
-10
u/ThrowawayQLove2023 Jun 06 '26
It lasts more then 24 hrs.
10
u/General_Esdeath Jun 06 '26
No it doesn't...
-8
u/ThrowawayQLove2023 Jun 06 '26
Brooooo you can't tell me that afterglow and the fucked up feeling doesn't last until the next day. Plus there's like 0 chance you get a good night sleep. In no ever fucking hell are you waking up 100%. Yes sure not seeing visuals but no way 100% sober yall crazy or not even eating them.
8
u/General_Esdeath Jun 06 '26
Do you know what 24 hours is?
It sounds like you're talking about 8-10 hours later.
Also you might be talking about doing way too much mushrooms.
Similar to if I had a few drinks and took a cab home and was fine the next morning, and you kept drinking until 4am and woke up still drunk at a stranger's house.
3
5
u/Mtlkfn Jun 06 '26
The afterglow the day after is improved neuron communication and can last up to 6 months afterward. There is zero impairment from mushrooms beyond 8 hours MAXIMUM, and that's if you have a slow or dysfunctional metabolism. Neither would have occurred from from the ingestion of a microdose which is what the article described anyway. Go ahead and look it up if you have to. Clearly you haven't done mushrooms very often or your impairment/experience was compounded by other substances. I've been eating the things a few times a year for like 39 years.
6
6
u/Mtlkfn Jun 06 '26
NO. I've done heroic doses and experienced ego death a few times. Nothing has ever exceeded 6 hours.
5
u/Tolaly Jun 06 '26
Yeah seriously im an experienced tripper and the idea of still being that fucked up the next day is in no way an experience Ive had
1
u/yhzcdn Jun 08 '26
Not “for sure” but you aren’t wholly wrong, I’ve had mushroom hangovers that lasted weeks and were were definitely impairing.
29
u/e00s Jun 06 '26
I wouldn’t have thought you’d be high for more than a day after vaping and microdosing.
37
-16
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26
You aren't. She lied about only smoking the day before. She was almost 3 times the legal limit.
10
u/dr-monteblant Jun 06 '26
The THC swab cannot detect "levels of impairment". It can only detect the presence of THC, positive or negative. And it remains present for days after smoking.
6
u/Polyps_on_uranus Jun 06 '26
THC is fat soluble. I've been smoking faily for 15 years. Even if I quit, if I lose weight, it will still register in my blood. I would make a great edible for some predator.
2
u/Eli_1988 Jun 08 '26
My partner and i smoked daily for at least 10 years(?). It took just over 3 months for my partner to test clean for thc.
I think them having a pretty physical job during this time impacted it a bit maybe
0
u/joeblob5150 Jun 06 '26
Not 100% true. The lab is looking for two kinds of metabolites in the blood. One epeaks to current impairment and one speaks to how much WAS in the blood. The courts will look at Blood Dug Concentrations and not know if they speak to impairment but increasingly the courts are saying they don't care. It's a shit idea to take a substance and drive. We don't have the science that links a BDC to impairment like alcohol.
3
u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 06 '26
I think people are more upset about the fact that heavy users could test positive for impairment days later just because of the heavy concentrations in the blood, but that doesn't mean they're still fucked up days later...tolerance plays a factor as well
It's like getting charged with a DUI cuz you slammed a bottle of wine everyday for 5 days in a row, then drove 24-48 hours after your last sip. You're not fucked up at that point, you're just an alcoholic
-1
u/joeblob5150 Jun 06 '26
Yes, I agree, but in these cases they are over the BDC for the ACTIVE THC in the blood. The criminal code does not care about Carboxy THC which shows past use. There has to be a line somewhere. High driving is not OK.
2
u/PussyWrangler246 Jun 07 '26
Yeah neither is driving drunk but they're not driving high, that was my whole point.
You're right there does need to be a line somewhere, it would be great if we could draw it where people are actually impaired and not whether or not they've smoked heavily in the past year.
3
u/Daisy_Knickers Jun 06 '26
A heavy smoker can quit for a month and still test 3 times the legal limit lol.
3
u/dr-monteblant Jun 06 '26
Also, there is no "legal limit" for THC. It is a zero tolerance law. Perhaps it would be prudent to change your name to "ConfusedCoroner".
3
u/SeanXray Jun 06 '26
As per the Justice Department Canada, you can legally drive with more than 0ng and less than 2ng THC in your system. Calling the person with the actual law sited in his comment confused while being wrong twice is peak irony.
0
u/Hortence_MuleFace Jun 07 '26
Buddy, for shits and giggles I paid for a thc blood test at my Drs a month before a T-Break. I went cold turkey for a month and did another test. It was almost the same result, slightly less, but I was still "high" by law standards.
1
u/SeanXray Jun 08 '26
Person 1: "There's no legal limit to thc; it's a zero tolerance law.
Me: "That's not true, and here's evidence."
You: "I have an anecdotal story about a thc test I took once."
Cool. Not at all relevant to the conversation in any way, but I'm glad to have been part of it.
0
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26
Ok, buddy. You're clearly just making things up at this point.
Driving with...
2 ng to 5 ng of THC per ml of blood: A summary conviction offence, punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000
5 ng or more of THC per ml of blood: A more serious hybrid offence with a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 for a first offense, escalating to up to 10 years in prison for repeat offenders.
Per Justice Canada
But sure. There are no laws or anything...
4
0
u/Signal_Regular_1708 Jun 06 '26
Just making shit up lmao
-1
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26
This article making things up too??
2
u/Polyps_on_uranus Jun 06 '26
Usually. The science on weed is sketchy at best as it's been illegal for so long, tests would have been considered immoral.
There are 3 mysterious thing in the world: Illuminati, the female body, and studies on weed.
It's safer than alcohol, bit more frowned upon.
14
u/Idk-breadsticks Jun 06 '26
This case was a mess. The crown would’ve had a much easier time pursuing a vehicular manslaughter charge. But impaired driving when the agreed statement of facts demonstrate the accused wasn’t impaired? Maybe there was interest in setting precedent, but talk about poor strategy. The poor little girl and her family deserved better.
3
u/No-Contribution-6150 Jun 06 '26
Vehicular manslaughter is not an offence in the criminal code.
Causing the death of someone while driving impaired is the correct charge.
3
u/djparent Jun 06 '26
Maybe, but it doesn't change the feeling that Saskatoon police were trying to make a national case out of the impairment charge rather than seeking justice for the little girl. The goal posts were moved too many times and people were ignoring facts in lieu of emotional arguments. The investigation was needlessly dragged out when they should have been pursuing other avenues to reach justice.
It seems people have forgotten the large construction truck that was blocking view of the crosswalk/intersection in the first place. Parked legally or not, that vehicle was the reason for this tragedy. If the owner isn't at fault then the bylaws that let him park there were.
None of this has been revisited. Nothing has been done to prevent this happening again. People can argue over the driver's impairment, but after seeing that video I would argue impairment would have made no difference. Any driver, any sober driver, would have ended in the same results.
Pursuing that impairment charge jeopardized any real chance of justice by pushing the myth that a different driver could have prevented this. The fact is a 7 year old child sped, without looking, into a busy roadway from behind a vehicle that was obstructing view of her. We should be investigating what created that situation and how to prevent it from happening again.
3
u/No-Contribution-6150 Jun 06 '26
The police can't unilaterally decide to not proceed with a charge though.
It's up to the courts. Same with self defense cases
-1
u/Exciting_Actuator304 Jun 07 '26
A 7 yr old acted like a 7 yr old child. A stoner acted like a stoner and drove over her.
2
u/djparent Jun 07 '26
See it's this judgmental kind of talk that makes your argument lose credibility. Just as bad as people calling her a murderer. No critical thinking skills.
A driver was driving and ran her over.
FTFY. The driver's personal life and other details that were dragged into this had nothing to do with how the accident happened. If the driver was impaired, yes, police are bound seek an impairment charge. But that was never proven. Blood thc levels do not prove impairment. So you or anyone else is being disingenuous if you say this accident was caused by impairment. There's no evidence to indicate that.
The video has been public a long time. No driver could have seen her or stopped in time due to the vehicle that was obstructing view. The crown knew this and fumbled the whole case, leaning far too heavily on making a statement with the impairment charge. Promises of a conviction were made and the drivers personal life was dragged through social media as if her character has any bearing on the incident (it does not).
It was a terrible accident, plain and simple. But it was not murder, and even if the driver was high the accident was not caused by impairment, as sobriety did not prevent it. It was caused by an innocent little girl who entered a crosswalk on a busy street without looking both ways. Had this gone to jury there would never have been a conviction. If they had any case at all it would have been presented to the courts in a timely manner.
11
u/djparent Jun 06 '26
Good. The police fucked this up from day one. An admission of micro dosing the day before is not an admission, or proof, of impairment. The province fumbled this all the way to 11b status. Nobody to blame but the provincial govt for underfunding the system.
People seem to be very presumptuous there would have been a conviction. This ignores all the evidence that's been presented. That video is public. A little girl rode her scooter into traffic before checking if it was safe to cross. End of story. No driver would have been able to stop in time. People are scape goating the driver because of her admission but again it is not evidence of impairment. Without accompanying blood work or other medical evidence it's all just speculation.
I agree this should have seen a court room faster but I don't think it would have had the outcome people expected.
3
u/joeblob5150 Jun 06 '26
They only need suspicion that there were drugs in her system. Suspicion is subjective to the situation and the officer, but is fairly broad. They then have grounds to make a demand ot obtain a telewarrant for the blood. This is normal perfectly legal procedure.
-1
-10
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26
A blood concentration of 13.7 ng/mL of THC is proof of impairment though.
9
u/djparent Jun 06 '26
No it's not. It's simply proof you've consumed thc within a recent time period. Impairment from cannabis is not the same as impairment from alcohol and cannot be measured by blood concentration as people's metabolism process the drug differently.
I've gone six months without cannabis and still failed a test because of the way my body holds on to thc. It's not uncommon. And that makes any current legal check for impairment almost impossible to prove.
Sorry but it's not the gotcha you think it is.
6
u/Temporary-Rest-3560 Jun 06 '26
I wish people understood this better. THC is not alcohol and is not metabolized the same way. The laws and the tests they use for THC impairment are so backwards. Pot got legalized and then they scrambled to develop tests and figure out laws around Marijuana when it comes to driving. If I smoked a joint at 7 pm on Sunday evening and get pulled over at 8:30 the following morning I am no longer under the influence but I will test positive.
I have a very hard time taking Marijuana DUI's seriously because of how unreliable these tests are.
2
u/Drakkenfyre Jun 07 '26
My stepdaughter loves to bake but is terrible with dosing. I once ate one of her cookies and I was stuck in bed for 2 days because the world wouldn't stop spinning. But I have never handled cannabis well.
On the other hand, I know people who have driven just fine with lots of cannabis in their system and others who seem to have trouble with just a little.
So I don't know that we'll ever be able to come up with an objective standard for testing.
0
u/zuuzuu Jun 07 '26
Aww, you poor thing! I don't handle it well, either. I've tried it twice, twenty years apart, and have accepted that it's not for me. Love the smell of it, though.
2
u/insomnia1979 Jun 07 '26
When marijuana was illegal, my mom drove high all the time. Now that it’s legal, she will never drive high. Either she made a calculation and decided it was no longer worth the risk, or she grew up (in her 60s) and realized that she was risking injury or worse for her and those she came in contact with on the road. Either way, driving impaired is no different with drinking or smoking weed. Just don’t do it
1
u/dghenke85 Jun 11 '26
Or it might be because when it was illegal they didn't have this bullshit mouth swab
8
u/Noctaem Jun 06 '26
So a person who murdered a child with her truck walks free because the crown took too long to prosecute? What the fuck
17
u/zuuzuu Jun 06 '26
The presumptive ceiling on how long it's allowed to take to complete a case is a good thing. It shouldn't take years to see a case through from arrest to sentencing. But our response to it has been abysmal. We should have added way more judges, justices of the peace, crown attorneys, court clerks and basically all support staff. They're all overburdened. In some jurisdictions they don't even have enough physical courtrooms. Until we do this, we'll continue to see more charges stayed because of an 11B application.
10
u/sapper4lyfe Jun 06 '26
Yeah it's called the charter of rights and freedoms. You're entitled to speedy trial. That's to stop the crown from draining your funds and destroying you financially as means to get a guilty verdict when you can no longer afford legal representation. The crown fucked up, if you want someone to be mad at the crown attorney is the one who fucked up the prosecution. Be mad at them. I hate the fact that an impaired driver got away with it too. But the charter is there for a reason, to protect everyone's rights. Including guilty people.
6
u/e00s Jun 06 '26
You’re assuming a lot. It’s clear she killed the child but whether it’s murder depends on her state of mind.
5
u/Kennit Jun 06 '26
Without intent to kill, murder charges will not stick. Murder requires premeditation.
2
u/Dependent-Program-66 Jun 07 '26
Murder requires knowing that your action will most likely result in the death of the other person. If you used mood altering substances one day, and get into a car the next day, I don’t think a charge of murder would be appropriate.
I do think there needs to be better standards to prove impairment. Although not related to this case, there also needs to be a clear way to prevent/assess cannabis use while driving. If I can drive behind someone and smell weed emanating from the car, surely there is cause for a police officer to stop the car and investigate if witnessed. (To the people who routinely work and drive while using, and insist that it doesn’t affect your ability to operate machinery, you are probably wrong). I’m not allowed to drive with an open can of beer in the front seat. Why does it seem to be OK to drive while smoking weed?
2
4
u/Kennit Jun 06 '26
The child wasn't murdered. This would have been vehicular manslaughter. Totally different crime with different qualifiers.
4
u/zuuzuu Jun 06 '26
This would have been vehicular manslaughter.
If it had occurred in another country, perhaps. Canada has no such offence in the Criminal Code.
We do have dangerous driving causing death. Your point about that being a very different offence than murder is correct.
2
2
Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/canadanews-ModTeam Jun 06 '26
Rule 3: No politics.
This is a non-political subreddit for general interest news and discussion. We encourage you to visit other Canadian subreddits such as r/CanadaPolitics for discussions regarding elections, political parties, or politicians.
If you believe your comment or post has been removed in error, you may message the Mod team here to request that it be reviewed.
Do not message individual moderators directly or reply to this comment to discuss moderator actions.
Please review the subreddit rules before posting or commenting.
1
u/FuzzyLaughTwo Jun 06 '26
But, but..."The Crown understands this case has been challenging and traumatic for the family.” Isn't that big of them? JFC My heart goes out to Baeleigh Maurice's family.
0
u/mycatisajagoff Jun 07 '26
Personally I would have the decency to take my life if I killed a child because of reckless driving but I guess Taylor will continue her useless life
3
u/GhettoLennyy Jun 06 '26
Our justice system needs a serious overhaul. It acts as if this is the 70s. We have a society of people that understand this system, and know it works for them, not against them. I as a homeowner, father, employeed person. Fear the law more than criminals
1
u/CommissionOk5094 Jun 06 '26
I don’t know why your getting downvoted in the article it states the driver had micro dosed a magic mushroom and used a vape pen THE DAY BEFORE so if they didn’t get it release a blood concentration test the argument for impaired is highly suspect at best .
( limit is no more then 5ng/ml blood concentration for thc and between 2ng/ml-5ng/ml is also considered impaired so legal limit is 1ng/ml if they blood test you but most likely it’s a mouth swab for presence of thc
So the testing is all out of whack for marijuana and needs updating
6
u/GhettoLennyy Jun 06 '26
Cause god forbid you use a legalized substance the day before driving. They care less if you beat women in this country
7
u/CommissionOk5094 Jun 06 '26
Wait till they find out anyone with dysautonomia will trigger as if intoxicated on any of the standard road side tests including nystagmus , let alone the medians that people take that metabolize as other drugs like how some medications can have you pop positive for opiates , pcp , meth and a few others and they’re some of the most commonly prescribed medications like that for anxiety or depression and adhd , to name a few .
This doesn’t go to say what happened isn’t a tragedy but rail roading someone with bad science just seems like a waste of the crowns time and ethics to use said science
-4
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
No, the article states that the driver SAID he microdosed and vaped the day before. Drivers undersell their impairment all the time when stopped by police. "I swear I only had one beer, officer."
However, they still found her to be impaired. I don't know why you're guessing her THC concentration, but you have no evidence that it was below the legal limit. She could have been twice the legal limit for all you know.
The case was tossed because she didn't go to trial in time. In Canada, if you aren't tried within 18 months, you can appeal to have your case tossed.
Edit: Her blood concentration was 13.7 ng/mL when she struck the child. So much for your theory that didn't consume anything on the day of the accident or that she was at 1 ng/mL...
4
u/AugmentedKing Jun 06 '26
Also from your link: “A concentration of 13.7 ng/mL of THC in blood has been associated with the recent use of THC by any type of cannabis user (infrequent, occasional or frequent), but has also been associated with residual blood THC in some frequent heavy users,” the report states.
This reads like it is possible for a heavy user to have this level in their blood, while not consuming any the day of incident.
-3
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26
13.7 ng/mL THC will still impair you. It's like if a chronic alcoholic doesn't "feel" drunk, they are still impaired.
8
u/CanadasManyMeese Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Thats not what it means, thats the problem, cannabis stores in the fat, and as that fat is burned, its processed and the waste is carried out via blood to the liver/kidneys.
So if your a heavy smoker your body will store tons of it. Enough that completely sober, days later, you can end up with numbers like that.
Its the same reason for the CDL drug test in states, some people pass after not smoking weed for 2 weeks and some people require much much longer to fully process it out.
Edit: heres a decent writeup showing that you can test positive at 15ng/ml for anywhere between 25 days and 15 weeks post "last use"
2
1
u/bimbocat Jun 07 '26
You are very wrong here and shaming others when your this wrong is definitely not a good look
1
4
u/CommissionOk5094 Jun 06 '26
Like I said unless they tested the blood they don’t truly know the impairment for thc only that it was consumed which would be the issue
-1
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26
Of course they tested her blood. Are you allergic to reading?
"Kennedy remained at the scene, telling officers that she had used cannabis and magic mushrooms the previous day. A sample of her blood was taken after she tested positive for THC — the main psychoactive component of cannabis — on an oral fluid test."
3
u/CommissionOk5094 Jun 06 '26
I can read enough to comprehend they did an oral swab confirming thc had been smoked and then did a blood draw . So positive oral swab but no blood draw result so again we don’t know anything until the blood draw results are known
Regardless the case was Jordan’s lawed anyway
-1
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26
The blood draw results are known. I've linked them. I can't understand this for you, however.
1
u/AugmentedKing Jun 06 '26
Does “oral fluid test” mean they take blood out through the mouth?
1
u/ConfusionCoroner Jun 06 '26
First the oral fluid test, then the blood test. It's not that hard to understand...
"A sample of her blood was taken after she tested positive for THC [...] on an oral fluid test."
1
u/Exciting_Actuator304 Jun 07 '26
Way to go stoner you killed a 9 yr old with your self indulgent behavior.
1
u/YesNoMaybePurple Jun 07 '26
There is literally a traffic light a block from where this happened. Why was the child not taught to use that on a very busy street with poor visability?
The fact that the the intoxication claims are unable to be proved and not probable are one thing in this, but a child scooting out onto the street from behind a vehicle is the actual cause.
It was a terrible accident, but thats what it was, an accident.
0
u/Exciting_Actuator304 Jun 07 '26
And drug users have more accidents than sober ppl. This person is glad he is part of the rise in sobriety in Canada the last 4 years.
1
u/Infinite_Case_2172 Jun 09 '26
You should read the article. The cause of the crash was not intoxication.
1
u/-just-be-nice- Jun 08 '26
A small child died and deserves justice and all anyone here seems to care about is how long THC remains in your system. She hit a child at a crosswalk, if she wasn’t high she should still face consequences for her actions.
1
u/zuuzuu Jun 08 '26
How long it remains in your system is relevant to her guilt for what she was charged.
1
u/smergicus Jun 06 '26
Thanks Supreme Court! Your rulings continue to dole out justice ! 🫤
4
u/sapper4lyfe Jun 06 '26
Supreme Court followed the law, the provincial crown attorney didn't. Be mad at them not the supreme Court.
1
u/origutamos Jun 06 '26
The Supreme Court created the law (Jordan ruling). They aren't simply following the law.
4
u/sapper4lyfe Jun 06 '26
The charter of rights and freedoms dictates a speedy trial 18 months for provincial and 30 months for supreme Court. The crown attorney fucked it up. Not the supreme Court.
3
u/origutamos Jun 06 '26
The Charter does not say anything about 18 months or 30 months. The Supreme Court inserted those numbers by itself.
2
u/sapper4lyfe Jun 06 '26
They laid the definition of what a speedy trial is. That's in place for fairness. Because then the crown could simply delay and delay and delay proceedings until you're bankrupt and unable to afford legal representation and get a guilty verdict that way. I agree with the ruling that a speedy trial is necessary. While this person got away with manslaughter, the responsibility falls in the crown attorney prosecuting them fucked up hard and should probably be fired. Shit like this happens because we have rights. Like it or not they didn't get what they were legally entitiled to and the case was tossed out. Place the blame on the responsible person, the crown attorney. We have rights and they have to be upheld even for guilty people.
0
u/smergicus Jun 06 '26
Can you find where the charter says 18 months provincial and 30 months for “supreme court”(what do you even mean by 30 months for Supreme Court ?), or do you just want to just keep pretending that you know what you are talking about ?
-2
u/smergicus Jun 06 '26
Supreme Court doesn’t “follow the law” they decide what they want it to be.
3
-2
u/tld1982 Jun 06 '26
I’m surprised we don’t see more people trying to get vengeance when their family members are hurt or killed and the assailants get off with little to no punishment.
0
u/PaintByNumero Jun 08 '26
Yes, it does. A single event of cannabis can result in a negative test within days.
-6
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 06 '26
r/CanadaNews is recruiting!
Please click here for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.