Body-worn cameras

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit of 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath samples, statements, and observations, alleging violations of her Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the police failed to make a formal breath demand as required by section 320.28(1) of the Criminal Code, delayed implementation of the right to counsel beyond the earliest reasonable opportunity, and that a breath technician undermined the accused's confidence in duty counsel.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the breath test results, statements regarding alcohol consumption, and observations made at the police station, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

This decision addresses multiple Charter breaches arising from the detention, search, and arrest of Omar Yaqubi in Toronto's Entertainment District.

The court found breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, including arbitrary detention without reasonable suspicion, unlawful search without safety justification, and failure to promptly inform and facilitate the right to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence obtained during the unlawful detention and search pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

Alternatively, a stay of proceedings was directed due to the loss of critical evidence caused by police muting body-worn cameras and failure to preserve key witness information, impairing the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The decision addresses an application by Tenzin Palden to exclude evidence of cocaine seized during his arrest, on the basis of alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court finds that while there was no breach of sections 8 or 9, and no breach of section 7 regarding body-worn cameras, there was a breach of section 10(b) due to delay in access to counsel.

However, the evidence is not excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the breach was not sufficiently serious to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with an excessive blood alcohol concentration.

He brought Charter applications to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, including issues with body-worn cameras, reasonable and probable grounds for arrest/breath demand, and the right to counsel of choice and language-based special circumstances.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding no breaches.

The Crown successfully proved the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt based on observations of impairment and breath test results.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

A police constable was charged with assault causing bodily harm after an altercation with an individual he was attempting to re-apprehend under the Mental Health Act.

The court found that while the officer was justified in the initial apprehension, the subsequent use of force, specifically four closed-fist strikes to the individual's face while he was on the ground and largely defenceless, was excessive and disproportionate.

The court found the officer's testimony inconsistent and concluded that the force was used out of frustration and annoyance rather than genuine safety concerns.

The officer was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

The applicant, Sayzer Sherif, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (cocaine and currency) seized during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest.

The applicant alleged breaches of sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, including failure to promptly inform of reasons for detention/arrest, delayed access to counsel, questioning after invoking right to counsel, dissuading from counsel before a strip search, and muting of body-worn cameras.

The court found breaches of sections 10(a) and 10(b) regarding delayed information, delayed access to counsel, improper questioning, and dissuasion from counsel before a strip search.

However, the court found no breach of section 7 regarding the muted body-worn cameras.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the breaches were not serious enough, and their impact on the applicant's Charter interests was limited, thus the admission of the reliable evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and operating a vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration above the legal limit.

He sought to exclude evidence due to alleged Charter breaches (ss. 7, 8, 10(b)) related to muted police body-worn cameras and delays in approved screening device (ASD) and approved instrument demands.

The court found no s. 7 breach, as there was no prejudice to the right to make full answer and defence.

It also found no s. 8 breach regarding the immediacy of the demands.

While the Crown conceded a s. 8 breach regarding ASD availability (due to R. v. Breault), the court found the breach minor and admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, citing good faith police conduct and minimal impact on the accused's rights.

The defendant was found guilty of operating with a blood-alcohol concentration above the legal limit but not guilty of impaired operation.

The accused, Ever Antonio Diaz, was charged with impaired driving and having over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defence conceded the over 80 charge if breath samples were not excluded due to Charter violations, and contested the impaired charge.

The court found serious breaches of the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), particularly concerning the immediacy of the right to counsel and the police's failure to facilitate access to counsel.

The breath samples were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Regarding the impaired driving charge, the court found the video evidence and other observations insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80.

The central issue was whether police officers' deliberate muting of body-worn cameras prior to an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand constituted a breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The court found that the deliberate muting was a serious breach of the accused's section 7 Charter rights, as it amounted to the deliberate suppression of important investigative information that should have been disclosed.

Applying the Grant and McColman framework, the court determined that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

Consequently, the breathalyzer results were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, leading to the acquittal of the accused on both counts.