2 total
Application to vary s. 161 prohibition order to allow contact with fiancée's child dismissed.
The applicant, a repeat sex offender with multiple convictions involving female children, applied to vary a s. 161 Prohibition Order to allow contact with his fiancée's 9-year-old son, or alternatively, to have his fiancée approved as a supervisor.
The court found that while there was a change in circumstances, the proposed variation was not desirable.
The court noted the applicant's history of offending against children in his trust and found the fiancée lacked insight into his behaviour, making her an unsuitable supervisor.
The application was dismissed.
Breathalyzer evidence excluded and acquittal entered due to police providing an outdated list of lawyers.
The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.
At the police station, the appellant was provided with an outdated list of lawyers and contacted a lawyer who was suspended from practice.
The trial judge found a breach of the appellant's s. 10(b) Charter rights but admitted the breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2).
On appeal, the Superior Court found the trial judge erred in characterizing the breach as minor and technical.
Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the court held the systemic failure to provide an updated list of lawyers was a serious breach that significantly impacted the appellant's rights.
The breathalyzer evidence was excluded, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.
