Darrell E. Coombs

The respondent was found asleep behind the wheel of his running car and was arrested for impaired driving.

He was read his Charter rights, including the right to apply for Legal Aid, but was not informed of duty counsel as Prince Edward Island did not have a 24-hour duty counsel system.

The respondent declined to call a lawyer and refused to provide a breath sample.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 10(b) of the Charter does not impose a positive obligation on governments to provide a 24-hour duty counsel system.

As the police complied with the informational requirements of section 10(b) based on the services available, no Charter breach occurred, and the evidence of the refusal was admissible.

The Crown's appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed as of right from a judgment of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division, which upheld the accused's acquittal on charges of indecent assault and sexual assault.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Appeal Division that the trial judge made no error of law regarding the standard of proof, the consideration of evidence, or the credibility of a child witness.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application to quash an order committing him to stand trial for unlawful confinement.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a judge presiding at a preliminary inquiry does not have jurisdiction to decide whether a provision of the Criminal Code violates the Charter.

The Court also found there was some evidence upon which the appellant could be committed for trial.

The accused was observed allegedly driving while disqualified.

A police officer stopped him and, suspecting alcohol consumption, demanded a breath sample under s. 238(2) of the Criminal Code.

The officer did not have an A.L.E.R.T. device, which arrived 30 minutes later.

The accused refused to provide a sample and was charged with refusing a demand and driving while disqualified.

He was not informed of his right to counsel.

The trial judge acquitted him on both charges, excluding the refusal evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown appealed only the refusal acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the demand was not made 'forthwith' as required by s. 238(2), meaning the accused was under no obligation to comply.

Furthermore, the accused's s. 10(b) rights were violated during the 30-minute detention.

Finally, the Crown was estopped from appealing the refusal acquittal because the unappealed acquittal for driving while disqualified constituted a conclusive finding that the accused was not driving.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder as a party to the offence under the constructive murder provisions of the Criminal Code, after his brother beat a homeowner to death during a break and enter.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the constructive murder provision violated the Charter.

Applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Vaillancourt, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the constructive murder provision was inoperative as it violated the Charter.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.