Anya Kortenaar

The accused applied to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple Charter breaches arising from a roadside investigative detention following an armed robbery.

The court found the initial stop lawful but concluded police breached s. 10(a) and s. 10(b) by failing to promptly inform the detainee of the reason for detention and the right to counsel.

The accused argued that evidence discovered later, including items found at his residence and incriminating text messages, was derived from the unlawful detention.

Applying the framework from R. v. Grant, the court held that although the police conduct was deliberate, the link between the breach and the later-discovered evidence was weakened by intervening events including consent given by a third party and search warrants.

Considering the seriousness of the offence and the reliability of the evidence, the court admitted the evidence.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on one count of criminal harassment and eight counts of breach of undertaking arising from communications made through a child communication book and a church website post.

The trial judge found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant experienced reasonable fear, and also accepted the accused’s evidence that he honestly believed the undertaking did not prohibit use of the communication book used for child-related communication.

On appeal, the Crown argued the trial judge improperly relied on the absence of prior consistent statements and erred in assessing the mens rea for breach of undertaking.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and credibility, and that his findings regarding reasonable fear and honest belief were open on the evidence and entitled to deference.

No error of law was established.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence related to alleged bolus drinking and improperly took judicial notice of certain facts when assessing credibility.

The court reviewed the record and concluded that the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence and that no material misapprehension occurred.

The appellate court emphasized deference to trial judges on credibility findings and held that the impugned observations reflected common sense reasoning rather than improper judicial notice.

The appeal was dismissed.