T. Hewitt

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging his s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached because he did not understand English well enough to comprehend his rights, and the police failed to provide an Amharic interpreter.

The court found that while the arresting officer did not breach the accused's rights, the breath technician breached s. 10(b) by failing to investigate the availability of an interpreter after the accused requested a translation.

However, the court declined to exclude the arresting officer's pre-arrest observations under s. 24(2), finding the connection between the subsequent breach and the prior observations was too tenuous and remote.

The Charter application to exclude the observations was dismissed.

The accused was charged with making child pornography, possession of child pornography, and voyeurism after his common-law partner discovered a surreptitiously recorded video of her eight-year-old daughter in the shower on his Instagram account.

Upon being confronted, the accused deleted the video and subsequently damaged his phone.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding he intentionally destroyed evidence.

The court concluded the accused had exclusive opportunity to commit the offences and found him guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with driving while suspended, making unreasonable noise, failing to identify, and assaulting and obstructing a peace officer following a traffic stop.

The court found that the officers failed to strictly comply with the preconditions for a warrantless arrest under s. 33(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, rendering the arrest unlawful and acquitting the accused of the criminal charges and failure to identify.

However, based on uncontradicted evidence, the accused was found guilty of driving while suspended and making unreasonable noise.