Ken Anders

This decision addresses a voir dire in a criminal trial concerning the admissibility of self-incriminating statements and breath test results in an impaired driving case.

The defence argued Charter violations (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) and that the accused lacked an operating mind.

The court found initial breaches of the accused's s.10(a) and (b) Charter rights during investigative detention due to police failure to promptly inform him of the reasons for detention and right to counsel.

However, it ruled that subsequent spontaneous statements made after the detention ended, and further statements and breath samples obtained at the police station, were admissible.

The court applied the R. v. Grant framework, concluding that the spontaneous statements were not causally connected to the initial breach and that the accused possessed an operating mind despite intoxication, as evidenced by his coherent responses and understanding of cautions.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault on his wife.

The central issue was credibility between the complainant's account of two violent incidents and the accused's denial of any physical violence.

The complainant testified about a December incident involving sausages where the accused pushed her down the stairs and kicked her, and an October incident involving socks where the accused grabbed her by the neck from behind, causing scratches.

The accused testified that he did not use any physical force and characterized his wife as a frequent 911 caller who fabricated complaints.

The court found the complainant to be a credible, forthright witness whose evidence was logical, internally consistent, and reasonably explained her prior failure to report violence.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, noting his inability to testify in a responsive manner, his attempts to trivialize his wife's complaints, and his controlling behaviour consistent with the complainant's account.

Both counts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test results on two grounds: first, alleging a violation of section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding the right to counsel; and second, arguing that the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable as required by the Criminal Code.

The court rejected both challenges and found the defendant guilty.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood-alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg and the resulting sentence.

He argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure under ss. 8 and 9, asserting the police lacked reasonable grounds to arrest and demand breath samples.

The court held that the totality of circumstances—including poor driving, odour of alcohol, admission of drinking, unsteadiness, and officer observations—provided objectively reasonable grounds.

The court also concluded that even if Charter breaches occurred, the breathalyzer results would have been admissible under s. 24(2).

The conviction appeal was dismissed, but the sentence appeal was allowed in part by reducing the ignition interlock ineligibility period from 12 months to six months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the conviction, including the appellant's admission of drinking and blacking out, the odour of alcohol, and the circumstances of the collision with a bus.