R. Patel

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to comply with an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand under the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant failed or refused to provide the required breath sample.

The court found that the 37-second period given to the defendant to provide a sample, under challenging conditions (rain, night, highway, recent accident, language barrier, new officer), was insufficient.

Furthermore, the lack of audio on police dash cam video and inadequate officer notes created a vacuum of evidence regarding the defendant's statements during the critical period.

The court was not satisfied that the defendant explicitly refused or failed to comply.

The defendant was acquitted.

M.K., a young person, was charged with sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, and inviting touching for a sexual purpose, involving the complainant C.B. The court heard evidence from the complainant, his sister, and M.K. and her mother.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be inconsistent and implausible, particularly when contrasted with his sister's testimony.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court believed M.K.'s denial of the allegations.

Consequently, M.K. was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with Blow Over 80.

During a Charter voir dire, the defence argued that the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel of choice by failing to clarify his repeated requests to speak to his brother, who had contact information for criminal lawyers, and by channeling him to duty counsel.

The court found a substantive and serious s. 10(b) violation, as the police did not take the accused's requests seriously and failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel of choice.

Applying the Grant analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the breath readings, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

This criminal case involved a motion to exclude evidence obtained by police during an impaired driving investigation.

The accused was investigated on his private driveway without a warrant.

The court examined whether the police had lawful authority for the detention, specifically considering if a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity existed, as the statutory authority under the Highway Traffic Act for random sobriety checks does not extend to private property.

Applying the Debot factors for assessing tip reliability (compelling, credible, corroborated) and the Chehil standard for reasonable suspicion, the court found the unsourced and uncorroborated tip insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.

Consequently, a Charter violation occurred, and the breath samples and observations made on private property were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, consistent with the principles in R. v. McColman.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and excess blood alcohol following a traffic stop.

The Crown's case relied on breath samples showing blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

However, the court found that the arresting officer lacked objectively reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, breaching the accused's rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Additionally, the police failed to facilitate the accused's right to counsel of choice under section 10(b) by ignoring his explicit request to call his mother to obtain his lawyer's contact information.

The court excluded the breath evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breaches were serious and the impact on the accused's rights was significant.

Both the impaired operation and excess blood alcohol charges were dismissed.