1 total
Court found a section 8 privacy breach for cell videotaping but declined to exclude evidence.
The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 120 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
The defendant raised two Charter issues: (1) that his section 8 and 9 rights were violated when the officer stopped his vehicle without requisite authority, and (2) that a video recording of him using the toilet in the police station cell breached his section 8 rights.
The court found the initial stop was lawful based on reasonable grounds for speeding and that the subsequent investigation was conducted lawfully.
However, the court found that the video recording of the defendant using the toilet constituted a breach of his section 8 right to privacy.
Despite this breach, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings as it did not meet the "clearest of cases" threshold, and would not exclude the breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.
The defendant was found guilty.
