Robert Wadden

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to address an alleged arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the Charter and by failing to consider relevant evidence regarding the mens rea for the offence.

The appeal court held that the evidentiary record did not establish a prima facie Charter breach that would trigger a duty on the trial judge to inquire into a potential violation.

The officer had lawfully approached the appellant who was sitting in a parked vehicle in a public parking area and therefore no detention arose prior to the breath demand.

The court also found the trial judge’s reasons adequately demonstrated consideration of the evidence and explained the rejection of the appellant’s explanation for failing to provide a sample.

The offender was convicted by a jury of manslaughter after fatally stabbing the victim during a drunken altercation in his apartment following a party.

The evidence established that the offender concealed a knife prior to a confrontation and inflicted eight stab wounds during a fight in which the victim was beating him.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a concealed knife in a fist fight, multiple stab wounds including a fatal heart wound, initiation of the conflict, flight from the scene, and the offender’s alcohol abuse and lack of insight.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth (18 years old), lack of criminal record, severe assault by the victim at the time of the stabbing, remorse, and strong rehabilitative prospects.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence of six years.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, applied for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period under the faint hope clause.

The court conducted an initial judicial screening to determine if there was a substantial likelihood of success before a jury, applying the new threshold introduced by Bill S-6.

Despite the brutal nature of the murder and the applicant's continued denial of guilt, the court found that his exemplary institutional behaviour, low risk to public safety, and advancing age provided sufficient substance to warrant a jury hearing.

The application was granted and a jury was ordered to be empanelled.