1 total
The court admitted the accused's statements and breath samples, finding no Charter violations regarding his right to counsel or search and seizure.
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.
