Julia McNabb

The court addressed a conflict of interest issue arising before the commencement of a five-day trial involving two co-accused charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

Defence counsel for one accused was also representing the other accused in separate ongoing criminal proceedings.

The court found that the divided loyalties between two current clients created a substantial risk that counsel's representation would be materially and adversely affected, and disqualified counsel from representing the first accused.

The court held that independent legal advice could not remedy the fundamental problem of divided loyalty between concurrent clients.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

The Crown dismissed the Over 80 charge.

The central issue was whether statements made by the defendant to police officers at the scene—that he was the driver and had been drinking—were admissible as evidence.

The defendant argued the statements were statutorily compelled under section 199 of the Highway Traffic Act and therefore inadmissible as a violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the defendant held a reasonable belief that he was obliged to answer police questions about the accident and his drinking, and that the state overreached by compelling information beyond what was required in an accident report.

The court allowed the Soules application and excluded the statements.

The accused was charged with fraud, forgery, and obstructing police arising from an attempted purchase of cell phones using forged identification at a retail store.

The Crown sought convictions on all counts.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights were violated through searches of his laptop bag, seizure of car keys, and warrantless search of his vehicle without valid consent.

The court excluded evidence obtained from the unlawful vehicle search.

The accused was convicted of attempted fraud and using forged identification but acquitted of obstructing police charges, finding any obstruction was de minimis.

Charges related to possession of forged documents were dismissed due to exclusion of evidence.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol concentration (BAC) after being stopped for speeding on the Gardiner Expressway.

The officer detained the defendant in the rear of a locked police cruiser for approximately fifteen minutes, ostensibly to spare him embarrassment during an admonishment for careless driving.

During this confinement, the officer detected an odour of alcohol emanating from the defendant, which formed the basis for a roadside screening demand and subsequent approved instrument demand.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the BAC readings on Charter grounds, alleging arbitrary detention in breach of section 9 and failure to inform of rights to counsel in breach of section 10(b).

The court found that the detention in the cruiser was arbitrary, not reasonably necessary, and violated the defendant's Charter rights.

The BAC evidence was excluded as a remedy under section 24(2), and the defendant was acquitted.