3 total
Preservation order granted for seized currency suspected as proceeds of unlawful activity.
The applicant sought a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act in relation to currency seized by police.
The court considered whether there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity.
The court found that such grounds existed and that granting a preservation order was in the interests of justice.
The court distinguished a prior decision concerning a Criminal Code seizure and accepted that the Civil Remedies Act issue had not been determined under the Criminal Code process.
A preservation order was granted subject to statutory review within 30 days.
The court excluded breath test results and dismissed the impaired driving charge because police imposed an unreasonable 15-minute limit on the accused's right to contact counsel of choice.
The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a RIDE check investigation.
The defence brought a s. 24(2) Charter application to exclude breath test results, arguing that the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) rights to counsel by imposing an unreasonable 15-minute time limit for private counsel to return a call before proceeding with breathalyzer testing.
The court found that the officer failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel of choice and excluded the evidence, resulting in dismissal of the charge.
The defendant was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of refusing to provide a breath sample after feigning attempts to blow into the intoxilyzer.
The defendant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop for speeding.
The defendant applied to stay proceedings based on alleged Charter violations and sought to exclude evidence.
The court found no merit to the Charter claims.
On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.
The court rejected the defendant's testimony as unreliable due to significant contradictions with audio and video evidence.
The court found the defendant understood the instructions but deliberately failed to comply with the breath sample demand due to his intoxicated state and defiant attitude.
