Vikas Khaladkar

Crown appeal from the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal's decision to quash convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement of a minor and order a new trial.

The majority of the Court of Appeal had held that the trial judge erred in rejecting the evidence of the accused's son and in misapprehending the trial evidence as a whole.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal for the reasons given by Hoegg J.A. in dissent below, restoring the trial convictions.

Fish and Cromwell JJ. dissented, favouring affirmation of the new trial order.

The respondent lost control of his motor vehicle and collided with a tree.

A police officer demanded he provide breath samples pursuant to the Criminal Code.

The respondent complied but was never informed of his right to retain and instruct counsel.

At trial, the judge excluded the breathalyzer certificate under the Charter, finding the respondent was detained and his right to counsel was violated.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that a breathalyzer demand constitutes a detention under section 10 of the Charter.

The Court further held that the failure to inform the respondent of his right to counsel violated section 10(b), and the evidence must be excluded under section 24(2) as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.