R. Levan

Two accused were charged with multiple offences related to an illegal online gaming and betting operation, as well as serious firearm offences.

The Crown opposed their release on both secondary and tertiary grounds under section 515 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the charges were serious and involved firearms, the proposed release plans with responsible sureties and strict house arrest conditions adequately addressed public safety concerns.

The court granted bail to both accused, emphasizing that detention is the exception and release the rule, and that the strength of the proposed supervision plan is a relevant factor in the tertiary ground analysis.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the constitutionality of Bill C-51, which amended the Criminal Code to establish new procedures for the admissibility of evidence regarding a complainant's prior sexual activity and private records in the possession of the defence in sexual assault proceedings.

The accused argued the legislation violated his rights under sections 7, 11(c), 11(d), and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected all constitutional challenges, finding that the procedural amendments do not infringe the accused's Charter rights and are consistent with the principles established in prior Supreme Court decisions.

The defendant was charged with exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a RIDE check-stop.

The sole issue was whether there was a breach of the defendant's right to consult counsel and, if so, whether breath test results should be excluded.

The defendant consulted with duty counsel for 18 minutes before providing breath samples.

The defendant claimed the consultation was interrupted by the arresting officer, while the officer testified he merely peeked through the window and did not rush her.

The court found that while the officer's interjection may have led to the defendant ending the call somewhat earlier than she might otherwise have done, the 18-minute consultation provided a reasonable opportunity to receive necessary legal advice.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that a detainee has an unlimited right to consult counsel and held that the right is limited to a reasonable opportunity to obtain immediate and preliminary legal advice regarding the core issues in a drinking and driving investigation.