Michael Waby

The accused, charged with human trafficking offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, citing a delay of 19 months and 26 days.

The Crown argued the delay beyond the 18-month ceiling was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the unforeseen unlocking of the deceased complainant's cell phone on the eve of trial and the overall complexity of the case.

The court agreed, finding the police made reasonable efforts to unlock the phone and that the defence's legitimate but numerous applications added complexity that justified the delay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused, Doris Xhialli, was charged with failing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

Police found the accused in the driver's seat of a vehicle with an open bottle of vodka.

After a breath demand, the accused repeatedly refused, arguing he was in a parking lot and not driving.

He was arrested.

Two minutes after arrest, while being searched, he quietly stated, "I can do it, I can do it now." The court considered whether this constituted a "last chance" offer within the same transaction and whether the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached by the officer not facilitating immediate access to counsel post-arrest.

The court found the accused's post-arrest offer to be insincere and not a genuine change of mind.

It also found no breach of s. 10(b) or s. 9 Charter rights, concluding the accused voluntarily waived his right to speak with counsel at the scene, preferring expeditious release.

The accused was found guilty.

This criminal trial concerned a single count of sexual assault.

The complainant and the accused provided starkly different accounts of the events.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, noting inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the showing of photographs, which undermined her reliability.

Despite the complainant's general credibility, the court found the accused's consistent and plausible account, coupled with the complainant's undermined reliability on a material issue, created a reasonable doubt.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

Malcom Lee was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The defence filed Charter applications, primarily alleging breaches of section 10(b) rights regarding access to counsel.

The court found no breach of the informational or implementational components of the right to counsel, or if there was a minor breach, the evidence would still be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed both offences based on observations of impairment, the unexplained collision, and breath readings.

The accused, Bowen Fan, was charged with impaired operation and operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

The Crown conceded the impaired operation charge.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of Mr. Fan's s. 10(b) rights due to language barriers and denial of access to a third party to obtain counsel information.

The court found significant informational and implementational breaches of s. 10(b) due to the police's failure to ensure Mr. Fan understood his rights, provide an interpreter, or allow him to contact a friend for lawyer details.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2), the court found the seriousness and impact of the breaches outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits, leading to the exclusion of breath test evidence and dismissal of both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80mg following a R.I.D.E. spot check.

Upon arrest, the officer read the right to counsel, but the accused explicitly stated she did not understand.

The officer failed to adequately explain the rights, steering the accused solely toward duty counsel without mentioning the right to counsel of choice.

The court found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath test evidence under s. 24(2) and dismissed the charge.

The Crown sought directions regarding the disclosure of police records concerning a young person (M.A.) involved in an incident related to a murder charge against the accused.

The court determined that records pertaining to extrajudicial measures (EJM) taken with M.A. are presumptively non-disclosable under section 119(4) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to protect the young person from stigmatization.

However, information about the underlying incident, such as a fight and its reason, and any animus between M.A. and the deceased, is disclosable and permissible for witness questioning, provided it does not reveal police involvement or EJM details.

The court suggested an Agreed Statement of Facts as a means to address the defence's need for full answer and defence without violating YCJA provisions.