M. Basso

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol.

At trial, the sole issue was whether her s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice was breached.

The accused, who was hysterical and hyperventilating, wished to contact her boyfriend to obtain a private lawyer, but police refused to let her call him directly and instead funnelled her to speak with duty counsel.

The court found that the police failed to fully inform the accused of her right to counsel of choice and failed to facilitate that right, creating a false dichotomy between police calling her boyfriend or her speaking to duty counsel.

The court concluded that the s. 10(b) breach was serious and excluded the breath sample evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in the dismissal of the charge.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol after being pulled over on Highway 410 early in the morning.

The Crown admitted its case on the merits, and the sole issue at trial was whether the accused's right to counsel of choice had been breached.

The court found that police failed to fully inform the accused of her right to counsel and failed to facilitate her access to counsel of choice.

Instead, police funneled the accused toward duty counsel through a binary choice presentation, despite her clear indication that she wished to contact her boyfriend to obtain private counsel.

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

The accused pleaded guilty to theft under $5000 and failing to comply with a probation order, receiving a suspended sentence and probation.

The court issued a ruling on the use of restraints in the courtroom, addressing the practice of keeping all in-custody accused in handcuffs.

The judge ordered the removal of handcuffs and clarified that there is a presumption that accused persons should appear in court unrestrained unless the Crown establishes reasonable grounds for their use.