David Locke

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg following a motor vehicle collision on June 10, 2014.

The Crown sought to introduce breath sample evidence obtained after the accused's arrest.

The defence challenged the admissibility of this evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the police failed to make the breath demand as soon as practicable, breached the accused's right to counsel by failing to inform him immediately upon arrest, and failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to counsel in private.

The court excluded the evidence and entered an acquittal on all counts.

The Crown brought an application at a preliminary inquiry for an order permitting audio/video recording of testimony from certain witnesses in a first-degree murder case.

The Crown argued that the evidence of witnesses directly involved in the alleged offence or closely associated with the accused was vulnerable and that videotaping would preserve a complete record for potential use under Criminal Code section 715(1) if witnesses became unavailable or hostile at trial.

The defence argued the court lacked jurisdiction to order videotaping.

The court granted the application in part, permitting videotaping of witnesses directly implicated in the offence but denying it for family members and associates not implicated in the crime.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol concentration after failing a roadside screening test.

The defendant's BAC readings were more than twice the legal limit.

The defence argued that the arresting officer's seven-minute delay in making the approved screening device demand violated the defendant's Charter section 8 rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that the delay did breach the "forthwith" requirement under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, rendering the searches and seizures unreasonable.

However, applying the section 24(2) analysis from R. v. Grant, the court determined that the evidence should be admitted as the balance of factors favoured admission.

The defendant was convicted.