Rick Libman

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the delay in demanding an ALERT test violated his Charter rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Court of Appeal that the delay breached the Charter.

However, the Court held that the admission of the evidence did not render the trial unfair under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the breach was technical and the police officer acted in good faith.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a Court of Appeal decision ordering a new trial based on the non-disclosure of a victim impact statement and its admission as fresh evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that defence counsel failed to bring the non-disclosure to the trial judge's attention at the earliest opportunity, making a tactical decision instead.

Furthermore, the proposed fresh evidence failed the due diligence criterion of the Palmer test.

The Court of Appeal's judgment was set aside and the matter remitted.