Sarah Repka

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing a demand for a breath sample.

Following closing arguments at trial, the matter was adjourned for judgment.

After the unrepresented appellant left the courthouse, the Crown requested and was granted leave to re-address the court in his absence.

The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge but also made submissions regarding the strength of the evidence and the grounds for arrest, with which the trial judge agreed.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the appellant's right to a fair trial was fatally compromised by these ex parte submissions.

The curative proviso did not apply as the appellant suffered prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and an acquittal entered.

During a trial, the Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of a video statement made by the accused to police, intending to use it for cross-examination.

The accused argued the statement was induced by a promise of release and that his section 10(b) Charter rights were violated because police failed to give a Prosper warning when he waived his right to counsel.

The court found no inducement, as the accused already knew he would be released on a promise to appear.

The court also held that the accused's waiver of his right to counsel was informed, unequivocal, and voluntary, dismissing the Charter application and ruling the statement admissible.

The Crown brought a motion during a voir dire to admit a video statement given by the accused to the police following his arrest for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The court found that the police officer conducting the interview lied to the accused about the nature of the allegations and provided false legal advice, suggesting that consensual sex with the complainant would not be a criminal offence.

The officer also attempted to undermine the advice given to the accused by duty counsel.

The court held that the accused was deprived of the ability to make a meaningful choice about whether to confess due to police trickery and misinformation.

The statement was ruled inadmissible.