Ann Cameron

The appellant was arrested for robbery and informed of his right to counsel.

At the police station, he declined to call his lawyer because it was late, stating he would call in the morning.

The police subsequently questioned him, and he made an 'off the record' statement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant's s. 10(b) Charter rights were not violated because he was not reasonably diligent in exercising his right to counsel when given the opportunity.

The appeal was dismissed and the statement was admitted.

The appellant was stopped and searched at a border crossing by customs officials acting on a tip from the RCMP that he was attempting to import narcotics.

He was directed to an interview room, frisked, and arrested after cocaine was found on his person, but was not informed of his right to counsel until after the initial search and arrest.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter when he was ushered into the interview room and his right to counsel was violated.

However, applying the Collins framework, the Court concluded that the evidence of the narcotics should not be excluded under s. 24(2) because it was real evidence, the officers acted in good faith relying on a prior appellate decision, and the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged the seven-year mandatory minimum sentence for importing narcotics after pleading guilty to importing cocaine.

The Court held that s. 12 of the Charter protects against punishments that are grossly disproportionate, and that the mandatory minimum in s. 5(2) of the Narcotic Control Act was unconstitutional because it would inevitably capture reasonably foreseeable cases involving much less serious conduct and require cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court rejected reliance on prosecutorial discretion to save the provision and held that the infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the means chosen impaired the right more than necessary.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of sentence.