I. Kandola

The applicant sought to exclude his statement to police under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 10(b) right to counsel of choice.

Upon arrest, the applicant repeatedly requested to speak with a specific lawyer.

After learning the chosen lawyer was a civil litigator and unavailable until later that day, the police officer presented the applicant with the option to speak to duty counsel or another lawyer, without advising him of his right to wait a reasonable time for his counsel of choice.

The court found this constituted a breach of s. 10(b), as the police improperly steered the applicant away from his chosen counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breach was serious and impacted the applicant's protected interests, warranting the exclusion of the statement.

The accused, a member of an outlaw motorcycle club, pleaded guilty to mischief over $5,000 for his role as a party in an ATM break-in.

The accused assisted co-perpetrators by deliberately distracting the store clerk.

The court accepted a joint submission, crediting the accused with 162 days of pre-sentence custody and imposing a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking exclusion of a police interview statement on the basis that their right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was breached.

The detainee repeatedly requested to speak with a specific lawyer, but police made limited efforts to contact that lawyer and suggested duty counsel after learning the requested lawyer practised civil litigation.

The court held that police failed to diligently facilitate the accused’s right to counsel of choice and did not provide the required explanation that questioning would be delayed until a reasonable opportunity to consult that lawyer had occurred.

Applying the test in Grant, the court found the breach serious and potentially impactful on the accused’s decision to speak.

The statement was excluded under s. 24(2), although the court held that the statement would otherwise have been voluntary under the confessions rule.