Layla Mehkeri

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown relied on breath samples obtained at the police station.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police breached the accused's right to counsel in three respects: (1) by denying him access to his cell phone to contact counsel of his choice; (2) by steering him toward duty counsel while ignoring his repeated statements that he did not understand the legal advice provided; and (3) by failing to re-advise him of his right to counsel when he expressed confusion about his legal options.

The court excluded the breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) and section 255(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a motion alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while there was no violation of section 8 rights regarding the breath samples, there was a serious violation of section 10(b) rights regarding access to counsel.

The officer failed to facilitate access to counsel for over one hour and forty-three minutes following detention.

Despite the Charter violation, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded on a blended voir dire basis.

The defence alleged violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on the investigating officer's failure to have an approved screening device readily available when making the demand for a breath sample, resulting in an 8-minute delay.

The court found that a realistic opportunity existed for the accused to consult counsel before the test was administered and that the officer failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate the accused's right to counsel.

The court excluded the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to cross-examine the complainant regarding whether she claimed to have previously engaged in sexual activity with a 30-year-old man.

The Crown objected, arguing that such questioning constituted an attempt to elicit evidence of prior sexual activity under section 276 of the Criminal Code and therefore required a formal section 276 application.

The court ruled that section 276 was not engaged because the defense sought to prove that the statement was made, not for the truth of its contents, but to establish that the complainant was attempting to present herself as older.

The court distinguished between evidence of prior sexual activity and evidence of a claim of prior sexual activity made for a non-truth purpose.