Hannah Margaret Duhme

In this criminal trial for refusing to provide a breath sample after a collision, the accused sought Charter remedies including exclusion of evidence and a stay under ss. 24(2) and 24(1).

The court held that the roadside detention, handcuffing, and force used by police were reasonable in the circumstances, and found no breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), or 12.

The court also found no breach of s. 10(b), confirming that immediate compliance with a lawful ASD demand does not trigger prior access to counsel.

In the alternative, the court held any potential s. 10(b) breach was minimal and would not justify exclusion under the Grant framework.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a former employee at his meat processing company.

The complainant alleged that the accused approached her from behind on two occasions, smelling her hair, placing his hands on her shoulder and neck, and touching her arms.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's testimony, including contradictory accounts of how she left the office, whether she spoke to her husband, and when she disclosed the incident.

The court also noted that the complainant failed to initially mention observing an erection until after her memory was refreshed by her police statement.

While the accused's testimony contained some implausible elements, the court found it could not reject his denial.

The Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and an acquittal was entered.