3 total
The court admitted breath evidence despite Charter violations for lost video and right to counsel, convicting the defendant of impaired driving.
The defendant, Thisock Seevaratnam, was charged with Impaired Operation and 80 plus Operation.
The trial addressed several Charter issues, including reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the informational component of the right to counsel (s. 10(b)), police questioning post-assertion of right to counsel, insufficient efforts to contact counsel of choice, and lost video evidence (s. 7 violation).
The court found a s. 10(b) violation for failure to contact counsel of choice (Peter Connelly) and a s. 7 violation for lost video evidence, but admitted the breath evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding no irreparable prejudice to the defence.
Ultimately, the court found the defendant guilty of both charges, concluding that impairment was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of evidence.
The court dismissed the accused's Charter application alleging language barriers and convicted him of driving over the legal limit.
In this criminal trial, the defendant, Mr. Tsang, pleaded not guilty to an "80 plus" charge under s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test results, alleging violations of Mr. Tsang's Charter rights under s. 10(a) and (b) due to language barriers.
The court found that Mr. Tsang, despite speaking with an accent, had a strong working command of English and understood his rights.
He was provided with an interpreter when he requested one to speak with duty counsel.
The court concluded that no "special circumstances" existed to trigger an obligation for police to provide rights in another language initially, and therefore, no Charter violation occurred.
Even if a violation had occurred, the court stated it would not exclude the reliable breath evidence under the R. v. Grant test, given the public interest in deterring impaired driving.
Mr. Tsang was found guilty.
The court dismissed the accused's Charter applications, finding no breach of his rights to counsel or medical care.
Mr. Fontaine was charged with impaired driving after a single-vehicle accident.
He brought Charter applications under s. 7 and s. 10(b) to exclude breath test results, alleging failure to provide medical attention and improper implementation of his right to counsel.
The court found Mr. Fontaine to be an incredible and unreliable witness, rejecting his claims of serious injury and improper counsel invocation.
The court dismissed both Charter applications, finding no breach of his rights.
