Alanna Fedak-Tarnopolsky

The accused, charged with robbery, brought a motion to exclude his videotaped statement to police, alleging breaches of his s. 10(b) and s. 7 Charter rights.

Although the accused spoke briefly with Duty Counsel, he expressed confusion during the subsequent police interview and indicated he wanted to speak to a lawyer of his own choosing.

The interviewing officer interrupted the accused's attempt to find a lawyer in the phone book and continued questioning him.

The court found that the officer failed to facilitate the accused's right to counsel, resulting in a serious breach of s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The applicant, who was on house arrest, was stopped by police while driving a van.

After his arrest for breaching his conditional sentence, police left the van blocking the roadway, subsequently deemed it 'abandoned' under the Highway Traffic Act, and conducted an inventory search that yielded crack cocaine and a loaded handgun.

The applicant brought a Charter application arguing arbitrary detention, denial of right to counsel, and unreasonable search.

The court found the initial stop and detention lawful, but held the inventory search violated s. 8 of the Charter because the police artificially created the abandonment to justify the search.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) due to the serious and deliberate nature of the police misconduct.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired care or control and driving with excess alcohol.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay, in exhibiting a reasonable apprehension of bias by preparing reasons before hearing submissions, in failing to exclude breath readings due to a s. 2(a) Charter breach involving the removal of his turban, and in rejecting his evidence of bolus drinking.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in his s. 11(b) analysis, his s. 2(a) analysis, and his credibility findings regarding the appellant's bolus drinking defence.

A new trial was ordered on both counts.