Dhanveer Mangat

The defendant brought a section 8 Charter application challenging the police seizure of his vehicle's Event Data Recorder (EDR) without prior judicial authorization or consent following a serious motor vehicle collision.

The Crown alleged dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm based on speed data extracted from the EDR.

The court found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the EDR and its contents, and that the warrantless seizure and extraction of the data constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that the police acted in bad faith by deliberately ignoring established Ontario jurisprudence requiring either a search warrant or owner consent before accessing an EDR.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for 'over 80', arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter applications under s. 10(b) and s. 11(b).

The appellant claimed his right to counsel was violated because police did not offer a Spanish interpreter, and that his trial was unreasonably delayed beyond the 18-month Jordan ceiling.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no 'special circumstances' required police to offer an interpreter as the appellant communicated effectively in English.

The court also upheld the s. 11(b) ruling, agreeing that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, primarily the gross underestimation of trial time and the expanding defence witness list.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and mischief, as well as a restitution order, arising from a road rage incident on a busy highway.

The trial judge found the appellant intentionally stopped his vehicle in front of the complainant's, causing a collision and subsequent altercation where the appellant damaged the complainant's vehicle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and met the legal tests for dangerous driving and mischief.

However, the court varied the restitution order, reducing it to exclude the cost of windshield repair, as the trial judge had not been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant caused that specific damage.