Robert Hagell

The accused was arrested for a sexual assault and advised of his right to counsel.

While detained, the police requested a blood sample, ostensibly for the investigation of the assault for which he was arrested, but primarily to compare against DNA evidence from an earlier, unrelated sexual assault.

The accused consented to the blood sample without being informed of the police's dual investigative purpose or being re-advised of his right to counsel regarding the earlier assault.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused's rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter were violated because his consent was not fully informed.

The Court upheld the exclusion of the DNA evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, concluding its admission would render the trial unfair.

The appellant was touched on the arm by a diminutive female security clerk and responded with obscenities and a threat to punch her in the mouth.

The trial judge found the appellant's response to be unreasonable and excessive, leading to a conviction for uttering a threat.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the threat, coupled with a gesture, was excessive and unreasonable even if the initial touching was unjustified.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding an incident with a security clerk.

The trial judge found that even if the security clerk had no justification for touching the appellant's arm, the appellant's response—threatening to punch the small female clerk in the mouth with obscenities and a gesture—was unreasonable and excessive.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal that there was evidence to support this finding and dismissed the appeal.