This decision addresses the application of section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning the right to counsel upon detention.
Dylan Smith was charged with two Highway Traffic Act offences related to a fatal accident.
The key issue was whether Smith was detained when he gave a statement in the back of a police cruiser without being informed of his right to counsel, thus triggering Charter protections.
The court applied the purposive approach to detention from R. v. Grant and R. v. Suberu, considering physical and psychological restraint.
It found that although Smith was not physically restrained or formally arrested, the circumstances—being isolated in the cruiser, cautioned about charges, and the power imbalance—amounted to detention.
Consequently, his right to counsel was engaged and denied, leading to exclusion of the statement under section 24(2) of the Charter.
