Wasyl Halkiw

The Crown applied for a temporary publication ban on portions of an agreed statement of fact and bail synopsis relating to an adult accused who pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The ban was sought to protect the fair trial rights of a young person co-accused who was scheduled to be tried for second-degree murder at a later date.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and concluded that a broad ban was not necessary, as alternative measures like jury instructions and the passage of time would mitigate prejudice.

However, a limited ban was granted for evidence that could identify the young person or would be presumptively inadmissible at their trial.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a breath demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant refused to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device on his driveway after being investigated by police for a possible impaired driving offense.

The defendant claimed he had a reasonable excuse for his refusal based on pre-existing anxiety and fear of police officers.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable grounds to make the breath demand, that the defendant's refusal was clear and unequivocal, and that the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing a reasonable excuse.

The court rejected the defendant's Charter arguments regarding unlawful search and seizure and the right to counsel.

The defendant was found guilty.