Tag Archives: Impaired Driving Lawyers

blog

The characterization of a jury charge concerning the use exculpatory statements in the context of an impaired driving causing bodily harm case could mislead a jury and result in a conviction being overturned.

Leave a comment

Jury trials and Impaired Driving Cases in Alberta
The use of a driver’s statement in a jury trial for impaired driving charges.

The application of the rules regarding the assessment of an accused person’s statement as raised in R. v. W.(D.),1991 CanLII 93 (SCC)was considered in Regina v. Bacci, 2018 ONCA 928, where the Court of Appeal in Ontario quashed the accused’s conviction for impaired operation causing bodily harm, two counts of driving over 80 causing bodily harm contrary to s.255(2.1) of the Criminal Code, and two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm contrary to s.249(3) of the Criminal Code. This was due to an error errors in the trial judge’s W.(D.) instruction in his recharge to the jury.

The facts of the case were simply as follows. The accused and her four passengers were returning to the accused’s family cottage when their car flipped over after the accused failed to negotiate a curve. All four passengers testified at trial. The accused told the police “I don’t know what happened. The car just lost control.” The Crown expert witness admitted that there was a probability, albeit low, that the accident could have been caused by a mechanical failure.

Central to the success of the appeal hinged on the W.(D.) instruction relating to the accused’s statement.  Again, the purpose of this instruction was famously described by the Supreme Court of Canada in the following clear terms:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

The original charge to the jury was:

I want to mention one particular piece of evidence you heard because it is deserving of special treatment according to the law.

[1]      You heard from Alexandra Jones that she heard Megan Bacci state at the accident scene, “I do not know what happened. My car just lost control.” If you believe that this what was reported by Alexandra Jones was in fact said by Megan Bacci and if you accept Megan Bacci’s explanation that her vehicle just lost control and you find this lose [sic] of control was caused entirely by mechanical failure, you must find Megan Bacci not guilty of impaired operation causing bodily harm, operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of over 80 causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. You might still find her guilty of the lesser included offences in counts 1 through 4. Even if you do not accept that Megan Bacci said what was reported by Alexandra Jones or accept Megan Bacci’s explanation for what happened or accept the lose [sic] of control was caused entirely by mechanical failure, if it leaves you with a reasonable doubt about whether Megan Bacci caused the accident and the accompanying bodily harm, you must find her not guilty of those offences because the Crown would have failed to prove an essential element, that is causation of those offences beyond a reasonable doubt. You may still, however, find her guilty of the lesser and included offences in counts 1 through 4.

[2]      Even if the evidence does not 1eave you with a reasonable doubt about whether Megan Bacci caused the accident, you may convict Megan Bacci only if the rest of the evidence that you do accept proves her guilt on that essential element of causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The recharge to the jury was:

The one last area I want to mention the one particular piece of evidence you heard because it deserves special treatment and that’s what Megan Bacci said that what Alexandra Jones stated that she heard that is, “I do not know what happened, my car just lost control.”

I want to repeat this to you. If you believe that what was reported by Alexandra Jones was in fact said by Megan Bacci, and if you accept Megan Bacci’s explanation given to Alexandra Jones that her vehicle just lost control, and you find that this lost [sic] of control that is referred to was not caused by her in any way then you must find Megan Bacci not guilty of impaired operation causing bodily harm, operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 thereby causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. You might still find her guilty of the lesser and included offences of 1through 4.

So “I do not know what happened, my car just lost control”, that is from Alexandra Jones about what Megan Bacci said. So one, you have to consider whether you believe that what Alexandra Jones said was in fact said by Megan Bacci. You have to accept that that’s Megan Bacci’s explanation that the vehicle just lost control, you have to accept that explanation by her and you have to find that this loss of control that’s alluded to, that’s referred was not caused by her any way, the lost [sic] of control of the vehicle was not caused by her in any way.

If you find those three things then you must find her not guilty on counts 1through 6. You still may find her guilty of the lesser and included counts, charges in counts 1 through 4.

I hope that’s cleared it up. If not, I’m sure you will have a question but you’re free to go now.

The Court of Appeal held that the original charge to the jury did not contain any errors concerning the interpretation of the above noted statement.  As such it did not cause the jury to give extra scrutiny to the defence evidence and it inured to the benefit of the accused. What is more, the trial judge did not err in his original charge when he instructed the jury that the accused must be acquitted if they found that the loss of control was “entirelycaused by mechanical failure,” as it was evident that this was not the only basis for acquittal (emphasis added). This is because the second and third arms/prongs of the W.(D.) instruction made it clear that an acquittal was possible via other paths. Thus, when the entirely instruction is reviewed in as a whole, the jury charge adequately conveyed to the jury that they were not engaged in a credibility contest.

In the recharge, the trial judge similarly did not err by providing an exculpatory interpretation to the statement. However, the trial judge failed to contextualize the recharge and identify that he was correcting a previous error.  In addition, the trial judge also said nothing about the second and third branch of W.(D.) in the recharge.  That served to only served to confuse the jury.  Due to the foregoing, this constituted a non-direction amounting to misdirection with respect to a crucial aspect of the defence.  The Court stated: “In these circumstances the jury is entitled to instructions which were clear, correct and comprehensive,as S.(W.D.) mandates. Unfortunately, the last word that the jury heard was an incorrect and incomplete instruction on critical issues.”

The defence appeal was allowed, the conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered.

If you have been charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and/or a similar criminal driving related offence, contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for an initial consultation at 403-585-1960. 

blog

Does the right to a trial within a reasonable period of time under Section 11(b) of the Charter apply to re-trial? By J.S. Patel, Calgary Criminal Lawyer

Leave a comment
Section 11(b) of the Charter
Right to a trial within a reasonable period of time and the calculation of delay after a re-trial.

The right to have a trial within a reasonable period of time was reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, and there have been many decision considering the principles that stem from that seminal case.   Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Regina v. MacIsaac,2018 ONCA 650 (CanLII), allowed the appeal of an accused and quashed his conviction of aggravated assault under the Criminal Code of Canada; and stayed the charges against him due to a violation of his rights under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).  This was based on the following time-line in that case.

Mr. MacIsaac waswas charged with aggravated assault on July 11, 2012, and he proceed with an election for a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice and was convicted on December 16, 2013.  On August 31, 2015, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. The accused’s counsel was served with a summons for the re-trial on November 30, 2015. On February 3, 2016, a ten (10) day re-trial was scheduled to run from February 6 to 17, 2017.  On August 25, 2016, the accused applied for a stay under s.11(b). The application was denied on October 26, 2016 and the re-trial went ahead as scheduled.  The trial judge reserved her decision following the last day of trial, which was February 16, 2017. On April 18, 2017, the trial judge released her judgment finding the accused guilty of aggravated assault.

The Ontario Court of Appeal court noted that the case was argued on the assumption that the eighteen (18) month presumptive ceiling established in Regina v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631applied to the re-trial. The court stated that it would deal with the appeal on that basis. The court commented, however:

[27]     In my view, the 18-month presumptive ceiling established for a first trial is too long in the circumstances of a re-trial. Re-trials must receive priority in the system, and in the normal course re-trials in the Ontario Court of Justice should occur well before Jordan’s 18-month presumptive ceiling. It may be that a lower presumptive ceiling is appropriate for re-trials.
[28]     We heard no argument on this point and it would not be appropriate to say anything more in the context of this case. This case was argued on the assumption that the 18-month presumptive ceiling applies, and I propose to deal with it on this basis. However, the Jordan criteria must be understood in the context of the Crown’s duty to re-try cases as soon as possible.
[29]     I begin by reviewing the considerations raised by the parties concerning the calculation of delay. I conclude that the delay in this case either exceeds the presumptive 18-month ceiling or is unreasonable in any event. In either case, the appeal must be allowed and a stay must be granted.

What is more, the court also addressed the issue of when the clock starts for the purposes of a delay analysis in the case of a re-trial. The court held that the time for assessing delay runs from the date the appellate court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. Accordingly, the clock started running on August 31, 2015.

In terms of determine when the proverbial clock ceases to run, the court averred that the end date for calculating total delay was either April 18, 2017, which is when the judgement was rendered or February 17, 2017, which again, was the last day of trial.  However, given that the factual foundation was not before it, the court stated that it was unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether the time a judgment is under reserve is included in the calculation of total delay. This was because the net delay in the case was unreasonable under either of the above scenarios: (a) First, under the initial scenario, in which reserve time is included, the net delay was over 19 months and exceeded the presumptive ceiling. The Crown had not established the presence of exceptional circumstances that rebut the presumption of unreasonableness. Accordingly, the delay was unreasonable;  Second, (b) under the second scenario, in which the time under reserve is not included in the calculation of delay, the net delay was over seventeen (17) months. Although this net delay was below the presumptive ceiling, the defence had met its burden of showing that the delay was unreasonable.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence, it is important to ensure that sufficient and accurate representations are made on the Court record to ensure that your efforts to proceed in a diligent matter are noted despite the tests outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Jordan. The common-law rules, as stated in this case, provides an example that depending on the facts of each case, may be useful in persuading the Crown or the Justice  applies to your case.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence, contact Mr. J. S. Patel, Barrister for a free initial consultation regarding your matter.

Call 403-585-1960

blog

A crushing sentence that was imposed by the sentencing judge was overturned, at appeal, by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Leave a comment

Recently the Court of Appeal in Regina v.  Williams, 2018 ONCA 367the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal against his twelve (12)-year sentence (less five years for time served) which was imposed, following his guilty plea, in response to convictions for drug and firearm offences arising out of two sets of charges.  He pled guilty to: 1)   Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, 2)   Possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, 3)  Carrying a concealed firearm, 4)  Possession of a restricted firearm with readily accessible ammunition, and 5)   Breach of recognizance (for possession of a firearm).

The trial court imposed what the Court of Appeal viewed as a crushing sentence, which precluding the prospects of rehabilitation, a valid sentencing objective.  The Court of Appeal stated:

 While the sentencing judge noted the appellant’s guilty pleas to the second set of charges in his narrative of events, his reasons do not indicate he took the guilty pleas into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Further, while the trial judge noted the appellant’s relative youth at the time of sentencing, his reasons do not indicate he took into account that the appellant was just 23 years of age and a first offender at the time of the first set of offences or that a first penitentiary sentence should be the shortest possible that achieves the relevant sentencing objectives. Finally, we are of the view the sentencing judge did not accord sufficient weight to the factor that the appellant should not be crushed by the sentence. In our view, the sentence imposed all but eliminates the appellant’s prospects for rehabilitation when considering the “Principles and Purposes of Sentencing”  in the Criminal Code of Canada.  While denunciation and deterrence are widely accepted as primary sentencing principles, section 718(d) clearly requires consideration to the issue of rehabilitation. 

The reasons for sentence did not indicate that the sentencing judge took into account the fact that the accused was only 23 years old and a first offender at the time of the first set of charges, or that a first penitentiary sentence should be the shortest possible sentence that achieves the relevant sentencing objectives.  Furthermore, the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently consider that the sentence should not be crushing to the accused.  The court reduced the sentence to nine years.

If you are seeking to appeal your conviction against your sentence, contact our law firm at 403-585-1960 and speak to J.S. Patel, Barrister.  We accept legal aid on a case by case basis and charge a consultation fee for a review of appellate matters.

blog

Removal or Withdrawal of Counsel from the Record for Ethical Reasons or Non-Payment of Fees, cases from 2018

Leave a comment
The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently ruled on the counsel’s ability to be withdrawn on counsel of record.  The starting point for any analysis stems from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Regina v. Cunningham, [2010] 1 SCR 331, 2010 SCC 10 (CanLII) where the Court laid out the following principles to guide the Courts when it hears applications by accused persons and counsel to be withdrawn as counsel of record:  

[47] If counsel seeks to withdraw far enough in advance of any scheduled proceedings and an adjournment will not be necessary, then the court should allow the withdrawal.  In this situation, there is no need for the court to enquire into counsel’s reasons for seeking to withdraw or require counsel to continue to act.

 [48] Assuming that timing is an issue, the court is entitled to enquire further.  Counsel may reveal that he or she seeks to withdraw for ethical reasons, non-payment of fees, or another specific reason (e.g. workload of counsel) if solicitor-client privilege is not engaged.  Counsel seeking to withdraw for ethical reasons means that an issue has arisen in the solicitor-client relationship where it is now impossible for counsel to continue in good conscience to represent the accused.  Counsel may cite “ethical reasons” as the reason for withdrawal if, for example, the accused is requesting that counsel act in violation of his or her professional obligations (see, e.g., Law Society of Upper Canada, r. 2.09(7)(b), (d); Law Society of Alberta, c. 14, r. 2; Law Society of British Columbia, c. 10, r. 1), or if the accused refuses to accept counsel’s advice on an important trial issue (see, e.g., Law Society of Upper Canada, r. 2.09(2); Law Society of Alberta, c. 14, r. 1; Law Society of British Columbia, c. 10, r. 2).  If the real reason for withdrawal is non-payment of legal fees, then counsel cannot represent to the court that he or she seeks to withdraw for “ethical reasons”.  However, in either the case of ethical reasons or non-payment of fees, the court must accept counsel’s answer at face value and not enquire further so as to avoid trenching on potential issues of solicitor-client privilege.

[49] If withdrawal is sought for an ethical reason, then the court must grant withdrawal (see C. (D.D.), at p. 328, and Deschamps, at para. 23).  Where an ethical issue has arisen in the relationship, counsel may be required to withdraw in order to comply with his or her professional obligations.  It would be inappropriate for a court to require counsel to continue to act when to do so would put him or her in violation of professional responsibilities.

 [50] If withdrawal is sought because of  non-payment of legal fees,  the court may exercise its discretion to refuse counsel’s request.  The court’s order refusing counsel’s request to withdraw may be enforced by the court’s contempt power (C. (D.D.), at p. 327).  In exercising its discretion on the withdrawal request, the court should consider the following non-exhaustive list of factors:

   
  1. whether it is feasible for the accused to represent himself or herself;
  2. other means of obtaining representation;
  3. impact on the accused from delay in proceedings, particularly if the accused is in custody;
  4. conduct of counsel, e.g. if counsel gave reasonable notice to the accused to allow the accused to seek other means of representation, or if counsel sought leave of the court to withdraw at the earliest possible time;
  5. impact on the Crown and any co‑accused;
  6. impact on complainants, witnesses and jurors;
  7. fairness to defence counsel, including consideration of the expected length and complexity of the proceedings;
  8. the history of the proceedings, e.g. if the accused has changed lawyers repeatedly.
  As these factors are all independent of the solicitor-client relationship, there is no risk of violating solicitor-client privilege when engaging in this analysis.  On the basis of these factors, the court must determine whether allowing withdrawal would cause serious harm to the administration of justice.  If the answer is yes, withdrawal may be refused.
In Regina v. Short, 2018 ONCA 1, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for first degree murder where the trial judge refused to let defence counsel off the record six (6) prior to the commencement of the trial proper.   Defence counsel made representations to the presiding judge that indicating that there was a “loss of confidence” between the accused person and himself.  That loss of confidence was such that counsel could not discharge his duties under the Law Society Rules because he could not ethically proceed.  The second ground cited by the defence lawyer was that he was not being paid by the client.  Finally, the defence counsel argued that “Counsel took immediate steps following such a loss of confidence in the relationship to prepare and file the Notice of Application.”  Trial counsel made representations to the trial judge in which he briefly outlined the history of his relationship with the appellant; again, he indicated he had not been paid and referred to the possibility of a lawsuit for payment of the funds owed to him. Counsel also advised the trial judge that because of the non-payment, he had been unable to do things that should have been done in preparation for the second trial.     The trial court considered these explanations but further queried defence counsel on the merits of the representations made and the materials filed, which perciepirated the following response by the Defence Lawyer:    

…I am telling Your Honour that there are issues that have arisen that result in a loss of confidence between Mr. Short and I…

…[A]nd I can tell you as an officer of the court, this is not me putting on top of a non-payment of fees, a paragraph that says there’s a loss of confidence just to get an easy way out. This is probably the most difficult decision I have done. In this particular case I have, without disclosing anything, done everything I can to move this case forward. After the second trial I wiped much of my calendar clean to get this second trial as quick as possible. Obviously, there were communications between my client and I that allowed me to make the decision to go forward, financially and for another, another, another, abound of reasons. But I am telling the [sic] today, is that having no funds, and not being able to disclose to you the communications between the client and I, that I cannot represent Mr. Short going forward. [Emphasis added.]

    It is also critical to note that the trial Court did not query the accused person because it was concerned about the possibility that confidential information would be related to the Court that would not have otherwise be the case if the application had not been made. The Crown Prosecutor objected to the application made by defence counsel.  Oddly, the Crown advised the Court that only payment issues were cited to the preclusion of ethical issues, suggesting that the defence counsel was camouflaging the true nature and merits of the application.  In accepting the Crown’s argument and rejecting defence counsel’s application to be removed as counsel of record, it stated:   Given the weight and tenor of the balance of the affidavit dwelling on financial issues, I am forced to conclude that the reference to ethics in the adverb “ethically” has no basis in evidence. I am persuaded that [trial counsel’s] difficulties relate to payment of his accounts and not to an ethical dilemma.[Emphasis added.]  
The Court of Appeal in Ontario held the trial judge was obligated to accept the defence counsel’s representations (as stated above) that the solicitor-client relationship had broken down; and should have accepted his application to be removed as counsel of record.  The failure to do so culminated in an error that rendered the trial unfair and created a miscarriage of justice. What is more, the trial court also erred by failing to hear from the accused as to whether he wanted to continue with the lawyer.
If you require the assistance of a defence lawyer, call J.S. Patel at 403-585-1960. However, please note that it is not our practice to discuss matters with potential clients when you currently have a lawyer.    

blog

The Constitutionality of the Dangerous Offender Provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Leave a comment
Under the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”), a “dangerous offender” designation carries serious criminal law consequences.  Generally, it is reserved for the most violent and sexual predators.  The designation carries an automatic sentence of imprisonment for an indeterminate period, with no chance of parole for seven years.   The constitutionality of those provisions of the Code were recently challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64 (“Boutilier”).   The majority of the Court upheld the constitutionality of the two (2) sections of the regime that was amended in 2008.  Currently, Section 753(1) of the Code sets out this two-stage test: the designation stage and the penalty stage.  It requires the lower Court, tasked with the adjudication, at the designation stage, if a sentencing judge is satisfied that the statutory criteria under s. 753(1) have been met, the designation as a dangerous offender must follow. At the penalty stage, under s. 753(4.1), a sentencing judge must impose an indeterminate sentence on a designated individual (an ordinary sentence followed by a long-term supervision order, or only an ordinary sentence) unless he or she is satisfied that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure will adequately protect the public.   In this case, the sentencing judge granted B’s application in part, finding only that s. 753(1) is unconstitutionally overbroad. Nevertheless, the sentencing judge held that B was a dangerous offender and sentenced him to an indeterminate detention. The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had erred in finding s. 753(1) to be overbroad but agreed with the sentencing judge that s. 753(4.1) did not violate ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal dismissed B’s appeal of his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.  The matter was further appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court stated the following in relevant part:   Continue reading The Constitutionality of the Dangerous Offender Provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. →

blog

Recent Developments in DUI Cases: The imposition of a lawful demands is not required for issues that arise under s. 258 – Criminal Code for DUIs or Over-80 matters.

Leave a comment

On July 6th, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a DUI case, ruled that a police officer and the Crown is not required to establish reasonable and probable grounds for a lawful breath demand for the purposes of a Section 258 of the Criminal Code of Canada

In R. v. Alex, 2017 SCC 37 the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to consider whether sections 258(1)(c) and (g) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”) requires a police officer to have reasonable and probable grounds in order to make an evidentiary demand as a pre-condition governing the admissibility of the certificate of analysis, which captures the evidentiary breath readings of an accused person who has been charged for DUI or “Over-80”).  Mr. Alex’s Criminal Lawyers argued that the subsections of 258 of the Code imposes such a requirement.  Section 258(1)(g) establishes a statutory exception to the common law hearsay rule. It permits a certificate of analysis, which sets out the accused’s breath test results, to be filed for the truth of its contents without the need to call for oral evidence.   Section 258(1)(c) then provides two inferences that may be presumptively drawn from the certificate.

The first inference, referred to as the presumption of accuracy, is that the breath readings in the certificate are accurate measures of the accused’s blood-alcohol concentration. This presumption dispenses with the need to call the qualified technician who administered the tests to verify their accuracy.  The purpose of these evidentiary short-cuts, according to the Court, streamline the trial proceedings by permitting an accused’s blood-alcohol concentration at the time of the alleged offence to be presumptively proven through the filing of a certificate of analysis. These shortcuts, however, do not affect the issue of whether the accused’s breath readings are admissible or not. They only impact the manner of admission — specifically, whether the Crown must call two (2) additional witnesses: (i) one to verify the accuracy of the certificate and enter it as an exhibit, and (ii) to opine on the accused’s blood-alcohol concentration at the time of the alleged offence — matters which have no connection to the lawfulness of the breath demand. This was made clear in R. v. Deruelle, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 663, at pp. 673-74, where the Court observed that the breath readings remain admissible at common law through viva voce evidence, irrespective of whether the shortcuts apply.

Thus the central question for the Court was whether the opening words of each s. 258 evidentiary shortcut — “where samples of the breath of the accused have been taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254(3)” — refer specifically to a lawful demand made under s. 254(3), which among other things, is predicated on the police having reasonable grounds to make the demand.

The Majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada decided that it doesn’t imposed such a requirement.  It used the modern principles of statutory interpretation to arrive at its conclusion. Parliament did not include the word “lawful” within section 258(1)(c) or (g) of the Criminal Code and when read in light of its over context, above and beyond the plain meaning of the sections, the lawfulness of the demand had no bearing on the manner in which the Certificate of Analysis, containing the blood-alcohol breath readings, could be introduced during a trial of a DUI matter.  Effectively, the Court found that it was lawfulness of a demand was not a condition precedent to the manner in which the Certificate of Analysis could be introduced.   It further consider that that Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be invoked, should a Criminal DUI lawyer decide to file the requisite notice to seek the exclusion of breath samples at trial by positing that they were inadmissible due to a breach of an accused’s persons right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court further reasoned that if such a line of reasoning and logic were adopted as suggested by the Mr. Alex’s criminal lawyers,

“….in many cases, trial scheduling would have to account for the possibility that two (2) additional witnesses would be required to testify. This would extend estimated lengths of trial proceedings: one day trials would become two day trials, two day trials would become three days, and so on. In addition, the Crown would have to be prepared to call a breath technician and toxicologist in every case and limitations on their availability could add to the delay. And the effects do not end there. The consequences of trial scheduling are pervasive, creating backlogs and congestion throughout the justice system as a whole. This raises the following question: For what purpose? The answer, as I will explain, is none, other than to provide an accused with a hollow form of protection against police misconduct which the Charter now accounts for in a much more satisfactory and meaningful way.”

The majority decision appears to be in inline with the it’s recent judicial pronouncements in Regina v. Jordan and Regina v. Cody where in the Court set out the new rules and law under Section 11(b) of the Charter to ensure timely trials.

For more general information about DUI charges, please refer to our link on DUIs and Over 80 offences.

If you have been charged with DUI and Over-80, this case underscores the importance of ensure that your rights under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms are thoroughly canvassed to ensure that all possible defences undergird a Charter Notice (where applicable) and filed in the Court prior to your trial.  To make arrangements, for a free initial thirty (30) minute telephone consultation, during our regular office hours, please contact J.S. Patel, Criminal DUI Lawyer at 403-585-1960 (Calgary) or 1-888-695-2211 (Toronto).

  *** The opinions expressed in this Blog are not a substitute for full and through legal advice. It is not meant to be used a fulsome account of entire decision and area of law discussed.