2 total
Section 276 and the common law Seaboyer regime do not apply to human trafficking and sexual services offences.
This is an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of evidence regarding a complainant's prior sexual activity in a preliminary inquiry for human trafficking and related sexual services offences.
The court considered whether section 276 applied, given the charges were not explicitly listed sexual offences, and whether the common law Seaboyer regime should apply.
The court adopted the reasoning that section 276 only applies if a listed offence is directly implicated or connected, rejecting the "sexual milieu" test.
It also declined to extend the Seaboyer common law regime to sexual services offences, emphasizing judicial restraint and parliamentary intent.
Consequently, neither section 276 nor Seaboyer applied, and admissibility would be governed by general rules of evidence.
Impaired driving charge dismissed after breath test evidence was excluded due to police denying the accused access to his cell phone to contact counsel of choice.
The defendant was charged with exceed 80 (impaired driving) following a traffic stop on November 14, 2015.
The defence raised two Charter violations: (1) that the police stop was racially motivated and unlawful under section 9, and (2) that the defendant was denied his right to counsel under section 10 by being denied access to his cell phone to contact a lawyer of choice.
This was the second trial following reversal of an acquittal on summary conviction appeal.
The court found no racial profiling but upheld the section 10 Charter violation regarding denial of access to counsel of choice.
The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2) and the charge was dismissed.
