Thomas F. Balka

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit.

The Crown sought to rely on breath sample analysis results.

The defence raised Charter violations: (1) a section 8 unreasonable search and seizure claim regarding the Approved Screening Device demand; (2) section 10(b) right to counsel violations, including failure to reinform of rights upon a second arrest and failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice.

The Crown conceded one 10(b) breach.

The court found the section 8 claim failed but upheld the section 10(b) breach regarding counsel of choice.

Under section 24(2), the court excluded the breath sample evidence due to the serious and wilful disregard by multiple officers for the accused's right to counsel, despite minimal actual impact on the accused's interests and the reliability of the evidence.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

A police officer lawfully stopped the defendant for traffic violations and sobriety concerns.

The officer formed reasonable suspicion and administered an approved screening device test, which the defendant failed.

However, the officer delayed providing Charter rights to counsel by approximately 10 minutes after arrest.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging a breach of s. 10(b) rights and sought exclusion of breath samples under s. 24(2).

The court found a s. 10(b) breach but declined to exclude the evidence, finding the nexus between the breach and the evidence too tenuous and that admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle "Over 80" following a police investigation on December 10, 2015.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the investigation by bringing a blended Charter application and trial, alleging breaches of Sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant argued that the officer improperly delayed providing rights to counsel regarding a marijuana possession charge in order to prioritize the drinking and driving investigation.

The court dismissed the Charter application and found the defendant guilty, holding that the officer lawfully conducted the sobriety investigation within the parameters of Highway Traffic Act authority and that the officer was not obligated to immediately provide rights to counsel regarding the possession charge.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown alleged the defendant was driving with a blood alcohol level of 131 and 124 (legal limit 80).

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath test evidence on Charter grounds, arguing that police violated her right to counsel under section 10(b) by failing to advise her of this right during a five-minute delay between the approved screening device demand and the roadside breath sample.

The court rejected the Charter challenge, finding the demand was made "forthwith" as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, and that the brief delay was justified to ensure an accurate test result.

The court also rejected other defence arguments regarding identity, the intoxilyzer procedure, and the approval status of the screening device.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and making child pornography available to others contrary to sections 163.1(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code.

Police executed a search warrant at his home and seized his computer and two memory sticks containing three child pornography video files and 4,176 pictures and 144 videos of child pornography.

A chat log revealed the defendant discussing sadistic acts with a person in the United States.

The defendant, a 63-year-old certified accountant with a prior similar conviction in Manitoba in 2005, was sentenced to an additional two years in jail (effective sentence of three years and 24 days including pre-trial custody), followed by three years of probation, along with ancillary orders including firearm prohibition, DNA sampling, sex offender registry compliance, and restrictions on proximity to children and computer use.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop for an expired vehicle registration.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the subsequent search of his vehicle, claiming violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant sought to exclude the cocaine evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant for possession of marijuana based on the smell of burnt marijuana, the defendant's nervous demeanor, and his apparent attempt to conceal something in the vehicle's centre console.

The court dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after being observed driving erratically by a witness who called police.

A police officer attended the accused's residence and made observations of impairment including unsteadiness, glassy and watery eyes, slurred speech, and the odour of alcohol on the accused's breath.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the officer's observations on grounds of breaches of sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the observations admissible and convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and with two related offences under the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended hearing incorporating a Charter motion to exclude breath test evidence.

The accused claimed his right to counsel was violated because police refused to allow him to speak to his father.

The court found that the accused did not express a desire to contact his father to facilitate contact with counsel, but rather sought his father's general advice about the situation.

The court rejected the Charter challenge, finding the police properly discharged their duties and the accused was not diligent in exercising his right to counsel.

The accused was found guilty of all three charges.

The applicant sought enhanced state funding for counsel of choice in advance of a new criminal trial after the Court of Appeal set aside his prior conviction due to a miscarriage of justice arising from ineffective assistance of counsel and procedural irregularities.

Legal Aid had refused coverage for the retrial, although the Attorney General conceded that Rowbotham funding was required.

The court considered the exceptional circumstances doctrine articulated in R. v. Peterman, under which enhanced funding for counsel of choice may be ordered where necessary to ensure trial fairness.

Given the applicant’s prior wrongful conviction process, hearing impairment during earlier proceedings, loss of faith in defence counsel, impecuniosity, and the extraordinary procedural history of the case, the court found that a fair trial required representation by the proposed counsel.

The Attorney General was therefore ordered to fund counsel at enhanced rates.