P. Ducharme

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death, two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm, and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg following a head-on collision.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, and 10(b), seeking exclusion of breath and blood samples and statements.

The court dismissed the s. 10(b) and s. 8 applications, finding the police exercised reasonable diligence in facilitating access to counsel and that blood samples were taken for medical purposes.

The court found statements to first responders voluntary, but excluded a statement to police under s. 7 due to statutory compulsion under the Highway Traffic Act.

On the substantive charges, the court rejected the accused's evidence of 'bolus drinking' and a 'third car' causing the collision, finding him guilty on all counts.

The Attorney General of Canada sought the extradition of the respondent to the USA for attempted break and enter.

The respondent was previously found unfit to stand trial due to tertiary syphilis causing dementia.

The court held an inquiry under s. 672.851(4) of the Criminal Code to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

The court accepted the defence expert's opinion that the respondent was permanently unfit, did not pose a significant threat to public safety, and that a stay was in the interests of the proper administration of justice.

The extradition proceedings were stayed.

The applicants, three police officers charged with sexual assault, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to delay.

The Crown had obtained a direct indictment, moving the trial to the Superior Court without a preliminary inquiry.

The applicants argued the 18-month presumptive ceiling from Jordan should apply because they were denied a preliminary inquiry.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the 30-month ceiling applies to all cases tried in the Superior Court, regardless of whether a preliminary inquiry actually occurs.

As the anticipated delay was 28 months, falling below the 30-month ceiling, the application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused, an immigration lawyer and her assistant, were charged with counselling fraudulent refugee claims.

The police obtained a consent wiretap authorization to record undercover meetings with the accused.

The accused brought an application to exclude the intercepted communications, arguing the affidavit supporting the authorization contained material misrepresentations and omissions, violating their section 8 Charter rights.

The court found that while the affidavit contained errors, including failing to disclose an informant's motive, the authorization would still have issued if the errors were corrected.

The court dismissed the application, finding no section 8 breach and concluding that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under section 24(2).