Sanjiv Passi

The Crown charged the defendant with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80) following a 911 call reporting erratic driving.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test results and statements to police, alleging violations of Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest and breath demand under sections 8 and 9, but found a breach of section 10(b) when police made only a token effort to facilitate contact with the defendant's counsel of choice.

Under section 24(2), the court excluded the defendant's statements but admitted the breath test results.

The defendant was found guilty of both impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court determined whether sufficient evidence existed to commit three accused to trial.

The primary accused was charged with first-degree murder in connection with the brutal torture and killing of an elderly victim.

The court found evidence supporting committal on first-degree murder based on forcible confinement and planning and deliberation.

The accused's mother was charged with being an accessory after the fact, and the court found evidence that she assisted in the cleanup and disposal of evidence.

A third accused conceded committal.

All three were committed to stand trial.

The police responded to a 911 call reporting individuals with handguns in a strip club parking lot.

Officers set up a roadblock at the exit and stopped the first vehicle to leave.

The occupants, who matched the general description of the suspects, were asked to exit the vehicle.

One occupant fled, was apprehended, and found to possess a loaded handgun.

The other occupant was subsequently searched, and a loaded handgun was also found on him.

The trial judge admitted the evidence, but the Court of Appeal excluded it, finding violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the initial detention and subsequent searches were justified under the common law police powers and did not violate the Charter.