Lloyd Dean

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while blood alcohol exceeded 80 mg/100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a section 24(2) Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence based on an alleged violation of section 10(b) rights.

The accused claimed police failed to inform him of his right to refuse to contact another lawyer and wait a reasonable time for his counsel of choice to become available.

The court found no Charter breach, holding that the accused was not denied counsel of choice, exercised reasonable diligence, and failed to communicate dissatisfaction with the legal advice received.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and exceeding the legal limit contrary to the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a section 10(b) Charter application seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence, alleging violations of the right to counsel.

The court found a breach of the implementation component of section 10(b) because police failed to provide the accused with a list of lawyers or phonebook when he indicated he did not know any lawyers.

However, the court declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2), finding the breach was minor and inadvertent, the accused received legal advice from duty counsel, and the reliable breath evidence was essential to addressing the societal problem of impaired driving.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery contrary to s. 343(b) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether a conditional sentence was available given that the offence involved the use of violence.

The Crown argued the offence constituted a serious personal injury offence, precluding a conditional sentence.

The court found that the accused's intentional application of force during the robbery—grabbing the deposit bag and causing both men to fall to the ground—met the definition of a serious personal injury offence under s. 752.

Accordingly, a conditional sentence was not available.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of nine months followed by two years probation, with credit for 36 days of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further sentence of seven months and 24 days.