Eric Neubauer

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired care and control and 'over 80'.

He argued the trial judge's reasons for the impaired conviction were legally insufficient and that his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice was breached.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because they failed to address exculpatory evidence and an alternative innocent inference.

The Court also found a s. 10(b) breach because police failed to inform the appellant he could wait a reasonable time for his counsel of choice, failed to facilitate contact, and failed to hold off on investigative steps.

The breath evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sought to raise the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism.

He brought an application seeking an order that s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which bars this defence for general intent offences involving violence, is of no force and effect.

The court held that it was bound by a prior Superior Court decision that had declared s. 33.1 unconstitutional pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act.

In the alternative, the court found that s. 33.1 violates ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and is not saved by s. 1.

The application was granted, allowing the accused to advance the defence at trial.

In a murder trial, the Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of a 911 call purportedly made by a central Crown witness.

The Crown argued the call was admissible as the best evidence of the event and to rebut recent fabrication.

The defence argued the recording lacked context and amounted to improper oath-helping.

The court ruled the 911 call-back was inadmissible at this stage, finding it devoid of material information and that its admission would serve solely to bolster the witness's credibility before it was attacked, thereby offending the rule against oath-helping.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit four out-of-court statements made by a witness, Kulwant Litt, for the truth of their contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule (a K.G.B. application).

The witness, who is the father of one accused and father-in-law of the other, had previously confessed to his son (acting as a police agent) and the police about the accused's involvement in a murder and the subsequent disposal of the body, but later recanted.

The court found that necessity was established by the recantation and that threshold reliability was met through a combination of procedural reliability (the witness was available for cross-examination and the statements were recorded) and substantive reliability (confirmatory physical evidence and lack of motive to lie at the time).

The statements were ruled admissible.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and accessory after the fact, the accused brought a motion seeking further disclosure relating to certified translations of Punjabi-language recordings and interviews relied upon by the Crown.

The defence identified material discrepancies between police, Crown-certified, and defence-certified translations of a key intercepted conversation and sought documentation relating to the commissioning, preparation, and certification of translations.

The court found that the requested materials had a sufficient nexus to the reliability of the translations relevant to a proposed s. 9 Canada Evidence Act application under R. v. K.G.B. The judge ordered limited disclosure of communications, requests, drafts, and information concerning the preparation and certification of specific transcripts prepared by a particular translator.

Broader disclosure requests were withdrawn without prejudice.

During a jury trial for second‑degree murder and accessory after the fact, the Crown sought a preliminary ruling regarding disputed Punjabi-to-English translations of intercepted communications.

The Crown requested that the court appoint a neutral third‑party translator to resolve discrepancies between the Crown and defence transcripts or, alternatively, determine that the Crown translation was accurate before addressing a defence disclosure application.

The court declined to order a court-appointed translator, emphasizing that calling its own witnesses should occur only rarely and with extreme caution.

Given material discrepancies between translations and incomplete argument on the defence disclosure application, the court directed that submissions continue on the defence request for further disclosure relating to the translations.