This voir dire decision addresses the admissibility of statements and breath test results in a criminal trial for impaired driving causing bodily harm.
The accused, Yunlong Li, challenged the voluntariness of his statements and alleged violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and 10 (right to counsel).
The court found that Li's statements were voluntary and that police had reasonable grounds for the breath demand, thus no s. 8 violation occurred.
Furthermore, the court determined there was no s. 10 Charter violation, as Li understood his right to counsel and exercised it, including speaking with a Mandarin-speaking duty counsel.
The court concluded that no special circumstances required an interpreter beyond what was provided, and any delays were reasonable.
Consequently, all challenged evidence was admitted.
