2 total
The court dismissed a Charter application to exclude cellphone records, finding the production order valid.
The defendant was charged with fraud over $5,000 and public mischief for allegedly falsely reporting his motor vehicle stolen to his insurance company and police, receiving insurance proceeds of approximately $17,500, when he was actually involved in a fail-to-remain motor vehicle collision.
A production order was obtained for cellphone records registered to the defendant's girlfriend but used by the defendant.
The defendant brought a section 8 Charter application to exclude the evidence, arguing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cellphone records despite not being the registered owner.
The court found the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records but dismissed the application, holding that the production order was properly issued on reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed, and that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would be admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.
Breath sample evidence excluded and accused acquitted due to police failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The Crown presented evidence from three witnesses and a toxicologist report.
The accused raised two Charter issues: an arbitrary detention claim under section 9 and a breach of the right to counsel of choice under section 10(b).
The court found the detention was authorized under the Highway Traffic Act despite the officer's primary suspicion regarding break-ins.
However, the court found a breach of section 10(b) when police failed to provide reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of choice, instead pressuring the accused to choose between duty counsel or no counsel.
Applying the section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence, resulting in an acquittal.
