Jennifer A. Comand

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding no violation of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, specifically claiming that his statement 'I don't know who' to call should have prompted police to facilitate his understanding, and that police improperly directed him to call a specific lawyer.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence, as the appellant had indicated he understood his rights and was not directed to call a specific lawyer.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with a developmentally delayed and visually impaired resident at a rest home.

The central issue was whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity.

The court found that the complainant's initial statements to staff indicated the encounter was consensual, and she only alleged assault after her mother arrived and reacted angrily.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that the evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding consent, resulting in an acquittal.