ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
|
|
- Noel Jones
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 BETWEEN: COURT FILE No.: District Municipality of Muskoka # Citation: R. v. Andrews, 2008 ONCJ 599 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND DANNY ANDREWS Before Justice Wm. G. Beatty Heard on September 25, 2008 Reasons for Judgment released on November 17, 2008 at Bracebridge Lyndsay Jeanes... for the Crown Peter G. Derry... for the accused Danny Andrews BEATTY J.: Introduction [1] Danny Andrews is charged with care and control of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood on August 5, Defence counsel filed a Notice of Application alleging breaches of s. 8 and s. 10 (b) of the Charter and requesting exclusion of the evidence of the Intoxilyzer readings pursuant to s. 24(2). The trial proceeded on a blended voir dire. P.C. s Fraser and Hetherington and Sgt. Collins of the O.P.P. testified for the prosecution and Mr. Andrews testified on his own behalf. Issues 1. Was a demand for a sample into an Approved Screening Device made forthwith within the meaning of s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code? 2. Were the provisions of s. 10(b) of the Charter engaged in the circumstances of this investigation? 3. If the subsequent breath tests were obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms provided by the Charter, should such evidence be excluded as to allow its admission in all the circumstances, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute?
2 2 Facts [2] A R.I.D.E. program had been set up at the intersection of Aspdin and Yearly Road in Huntsville. P.C. Fraser stopped Mr. Andrews who said he had not consumed any alcohol. P.C. Fraser noted no signs of impairment and sent Mr. Andrews on his way at 9:22 p.m. As he pulled away, P.C. Hetherington noted that the trailer being pulled by Mr. Andrews vehicle had no licence plate. He yelled at Mr. Andrews who drove away slowly. He got in his police cruiser and stopped Mr. Andrews about 300 metres from the R.I.D.E. location. He noted that Mr. Andrews pulled over slowly and when questioned about the plate, Mr. Andrews said that he had left it in the boat. While dealing with the licence and ownership documents, P.C. Hetherington smelled a strong odour of gum from Mr. Andrews mouth and thought he smelled alcohol in the vehicle. Mr. Andrews said he had not been drinking. P.C. Hetherington returned to his cruiser and wrote a Provincial Offences Notice for the missing plate. While explaining the ticket to Mr. Andrews, he thought he could smell alcohol masked by the gum on Mr. Andrews breath. Mr. Andrews again denied drinking. P.C. Hetherington formed a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Andrews had alcohol in his body at 21:33 hrs and called Sgt. Collins at 21:35 hrs to bring the approved screening device. Sgt. Collins was unable to bring the device because he was involved in an investigation. P.C. Hetherington told Mr. Andrews that he was detained and took the keys to his vehicle. He did not make a formal demand. He said that he would be back in a couple of minutes. He left at 21:40 hrs and returned at 21:42 hrs. He read the ASD demand and tested the unit at 21:47 hrs. At 21:48 hrs, Mr. Andrews registered an F. At 21:49 hrs, he arrested Mr. Andrews for over 80 based upon the reasonable and probable grounds supported by the device. At 21:51 hrs Mr. Andrews was read his rights to counsel but would not answer if he understood or wanted a lawyer. He said, Do what you want to do you just ruined my life. After reading the caution, P.C. Hetherington called P.C. Fraser and Sgt. Collins at 21:57 hrs to advise that he had arrested Mr. Andrews. At 21:59 hrs, he read the breath demand and after leaving Mr. Andrews keys with P.C. Fraser, left for the Huntsville detachment, arriving at 22:13 hrs. At 22:15 hrs, Mr. Andrews was lodged in a cell and asked again if he wanted a lawyer. As Mr. Andrews did not appear to be sure if he wanted a lawyer, P.C. Hetherington called duty counsel at 22:17 hrs. Duty counsel returned the call at 22:23 hrs and spoke to Mr. Andrews between 22:26 hrs and 22:32 hrs. At 22:37 hrs, Mr. Andrews was turned over to P.C. Powers for breath tests and returned to custody at 23:13 hrs. [3] On cross-examination, P.C. Hetherington agreed that he did not make the ASD demand or provide rights to counsel when he formed the reasonable suspicion at about 21:33 hrs as he did not know how long it would take to get the ASD and he did not believe he could give the test forthwith. He said that he could have made the formal demand but instead gave him the information as to the ASD and held off on the formal demand. He said that he did not feel Mr. Andrews had a right to counsel before the ASD test in any event and he did not read the right to counsel until after the test was given. He said that had Mr. Andrews asked to use his cell phone, he would not allow it. [4] Mr. Andrews testified that he believed he was stopped for minutes before P.C. Hetherington returned with the ASD. He said he had his cell phone with him in his vehicle and a local telephone book which had the telephone number of the lawyer he used for
3 3 real estate and MOE matters. He was told neither that he could make a call nor had a right to call his own lawyer or duty counsel at the roadside. He says that he hates to bother people, so he would have called duty counsel had he been advised of his rights to counsel. He acknowledged that he was guessing as to times and although he could not remember the conversation regarding a lawyer at the detachment, he did not ask for a telephone book or mention his lawyer s name. P.C. Hetherington said that Mr. Andrews was undecided as to whether or not he needed to consult duty counsel, so he called duty counsel on his behalf so Mr. Andrews would have the benefit of legal advice. Analysis [5] The issues in this case, as those reviewed by Justice Charron at paragraph 1 of R. v. Orbanski, [2005] SCJ No. 37 result from the tension between the individual rights of motorists and the broader societal concern dealing with the carnage caused by those who commit offences involving drinking and driving. These issues include the use of roadside screening device tests, reasonable limits on the right to counsel and necessary detention of drivers for the purpose of investigation. Citing Dedman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2, at p. 35, Justice Charron at paragraph 24 states: This Court has recognized that, while movement in a vehicle involves a liberty interest in a general sense, it cannot be equated to the ordinary freedom of movement of the individual that constitutes one of the fundamental values of our democratic society. Rather, it is a licensed activity that is subject to regulation and control for the protection of life and property. [6] In Orbanski, the majority concluded that the screening measures under Manitoba road safety legislation were analogous to the suspension of rights to counsel under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code and were not objectionable under the test in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, namely: 1. the objective of the law must be sufficiently important; 2. there must be a rational connection between the limit and the objective; 3. the infringement of the right must be no more than is necessary to meet the objective; and 4. there must be proportionality between the deleterious and the salutary effects of the measure that limits the right or freedom protected by the Charter. [7] The tension between balancing public safety and personal rights is captured in paragraph 29 of R. v. Woods, 2005 S.C.C. 42: The forthwith requirement of s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code is
4 4 inextricably linked to its constitutional integrity. It addresses the issues of unreasonable search and seizure, arbitrary detention and the infringement of the right to counsel, notwithstanding ss. 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter. [8] The analysis in Woods, Orbanski and Latour, (1997), 116 C.C.C. (3d) 279 (Ont. C.A) was reviewed in R. v. Torsney, [2007] O.J. No. 355, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court confirmed at paragraph 9 that if: the peace officer is in a position to require the person to provide the sample before there is any realistic opportunity to consult counsel, the statutory requirements are met. The detained person has no cause for complaint as the events will have unfolded in accordance with the legislative scheme and within its constitutional boundaries. I see no sound policy reason for requiring that the statutory requirements be met by design rather than by chance. Compliance is compliance whether fortuitous or otherwise. [9] Justice Hill in R. v. Singh, [2000] O.J. No (O.S.C) at paragraph 25 adopts the reasoning in The Queen v. Bernshaw (1995), 95 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.) that the term forthwith does not mean immediately but is to be afforded a practical interpretation with sufficient flexibility to permit the roadside testing scheme to operate in fulfilment of Parliament s objectives. [10] Restated, the test for forthwith compliance or right to counsel runs from the time that the police officer forms a reasonable suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol to the presentation of the approved screening device. The Court also must consider the circumstances of the detention and demand and whether such is subjectively and objectively reasonable. However, time is an important component of such analysis and the longer the delay, the more difficult to justify the delay as being compliant with s. 254(2) or a reasonable limitation demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter. [11] To summarize the facts at hand: 2133H P.C. Hetherington formed a reasonable suspicion of alcohol consumption. He is delayed in obtaining the approved screening device due to another investigation. He explains to Mr. Andrews that he is going to get the device and administer the test. He does not provide a formal demand or right to counsel. 2142H approved screening device obtained 2146H- formal demand 2148H- Mr. Andrews registers a fail
5 5 2149H- arrest 2151H right to counsel [12] Further, I note the following: a) Mr. Andrews was detained for investigation and processing of a provincial offence ticket before 2133H. Such detention was appropriate and authorized by statute and did not precipitate any right to counsel considerations until the police officer formed a reasonable suspicion for the s. 254(2) demand. b) P.C. Hetherington held off the demand as he believed that he would not administer the test forthwith". c) Mr. Andrews was detained under the s. 254(2) investigation from 2133H as P.C. Hetherington told him to remain in his vehicle until he returned in a couple of minutes and took his keys. d) It appears that P.C. Hetherington implied that a demand would be made as he said that he was going to get the approved screening device thereby providing an informational component. e) P.C. Hetherington did not provide either a formal right to counsel or determine if Mr. Andrews had a cell phone. Mr. Andrews testified that he had a cell phone and phone book in his car, and presumably, he could use it after P.C. Hetherington left. f) P.C. Hetherington said that he did not believe it was necessary to provide rights to counsel and would not allow Mr. Andrews to use his own cell phone if he had asked. He did not believe that there would be a reasonable opportunity to contact and consult counsel in the few minutes available in the late evening. g) Mr. Andrews said that had he been advised of his right to counsel and presumably, the number of duty counsel, he would have spoken to a lawyer from his vehicle. I find that statement suspect as he would not answer P.C. Hetherington s questions whether he wanted to consult counsel when such rights were read
6 6 after arrest and again at the detachment. P.C. Hetherington contacted duty counsel as Mr. Andrews seemed undecided and in need of advice. Surprisingly duty counsel called back in five minutes and was consulted by Mr. Andrews for six minutes. Subjectively and objectively, P.C. Hetherington s belief was reasonable. The delay in this case was 13 minutes from forming a reasonable suspicion to demand for the sample of breath. [13] Delay in this case was nine minutes to obtain the approved screening device and a further six minutes to the test. [14] Other cases are as follows: R. v. Grant, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 139: Delay of 30 minutes to await arrival of ASD total. R. v. Coté, (1992) 70 C.C.C. (3d) 280 (O.C.A.): Officer had no ASD in cruiser and drove accused to detachment where accused refused to provide sample. Total 14 minutes nine minute drive and five minute preparation. Not forthwith. R. v. Bernshaw, (1995) 95 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.): Fifteen minute delay for mouth alcohol. No breach of right to counsel. R. v. Singh, [2000] O.J. No (O.S.C): Delay of 18 minutes from reasonable suspicion to results of ASD. Delay caused in part by enforced communication radio silence. No breach of as soon as practicable but temporal and causal connection of breath sample with detention as demand not made forthwith rendering detention unlawful. The seriousness of the breach warranted exclusion of breath test results. R. v. George, [2004] O.J. No (O.C.A.): Sixteen minute delay to obtain ASD and another two minutes for sample. Driver s right to counsel violated and breath samples excluded. R. v. Latour, [1997] O.J. No (O.C.A.):
7 7 Eight minutes to obtain ASD and a further four minutes for sample. All circumstances including time elapsed from demand to sample had to be considered to determine whether the officer was in a position to require that a breath sample was provided forthwith, namely before there was any realistic opportunity to consult counsel. Twelve minutes was forthwith. R. v. Radisa, [2007] O.J. No (O.C.J.): Four minutes from reasonable suspicion to demand for ASD sample. Driver refused to comply and unsuccessful in supplying sample for a further 14 minutes. Demand made forthwith and need not be in any particular form so long as it was made clear to driver that he must provide sample. R. v. Pierman, (1994), 92 C.C.C. (3d) 160 (O.C.A.): Fifteen minute delay for mouth alcohol satisfies forthwith. R. v. Meisner, [1993] O.J. No (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)): Thirty minute delay while police officer arresting passenger for other offences. Driver left locked in cruiser throughout. Right to counsel necessary and breath results excluded. R. v. Boeje, [1995] O.J. No (O.C.J. Prov. Div.): Conclusions Six minute delay from reasonable suspicion to demand. Police officer checking documents and making notes, losing focus of s. 254(2) forthwith. Demand not forthwith and rights to counsel not provided. Breath tests excluded. Was the demand made forthwith? [15] P.C. Hetherington testified that he told Mr. Andrews that he would have to submit to an approved screening device test upon forming the reasonable suspicion that Mr. Andrews had alcohol in his body. He delayed the formal demand as he did not know how long would be required to obtain the device. Mr. Andrews was constructively detained by being told to remain in his vehicle and the officer took his keys. He said if he read the formal demand, he did not believe that he would give the test forthwith. He believed honestly but erroneously that by not reading the formal demand, the provisions of s. 254(2) were not engaged. He did not take note of any demand in his notebook until he made the formal demand after returning with the device. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the informational component of the demand was conveyed to Mr. Andrews before the officer left to obtain the device, and the onus lies with the Crown to prove that the
8 8 requirements of s. 254(2) have been satisfied. [16] The delay of some 15 minutes engages Mr. Andrews s. 10 (b) rights to be advised that he may contact and consult counsel. Suspects are not presumed to know their rights to know the reason for such detention and that they may seek advice. Nothing depends upon Mr. Andrews failure to contact a lawyer while he was not supervised and it may never have occurred to him in the absence of the information from the officer. His lack of response to being read his rights after arrest or at the detachment is not sufficiently probative to conclude that he would have acted differently while detained at the roadside. Mr. Andrews testimony as to his desire to speak to a lawyer was not very helpful or credible, but the officer s testimony that he would not have allowed Mr. Andrews to make a call in any event forecloses the issue. [17] Having determined that the demand was not made forthwith, the Crown is precluded from relying upon the evidential shortcut of proof of the breath test results. The delay further engages Mr. Andrews right to counsel and the failure to provide such information is a serious breach of 10 (b). Admission of the results of the breath test would bring the administration of justice into disrepute per R. v. Oakes (supra). Released: November 17, 2008 Signed: Justice Beatty
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL COURT
COURT FILE NO.: SCA(P2731/08 (Brampton DATE: 20090724 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL COURT B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Cynthia Valarezo, for the Crown Respondent -
More informationBetween Her Majesty the Queen, and Brandon Oliver. [2011] O.J. No Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario. W.J. Blacklock J.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Oliver Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Brandon Oliver [2011] O.J. No. 4554 Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario W.J. Blacklock J. Oral judgment: June 20, 2011. (32 paras.)
More informationCase Name: R. v. XXXXX-XXXXX. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diego G. XXXXX-XXXXX. [2010] O.J. No File No
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. XXXXX-XXXXX Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diego G. XXXXX-XXXXX [2010] O.J. No. 5433 File No. 09-0082 Counsel: Mr. R. Tallim, Counsel for the Crown. Mr. D. Anber, Counsel for
More informationPOLICE WARNINGS Effective Date: May 9, 2005 Revised: September 8, 2009
SOUTH COAST BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY POLICE SERVICE POLICE WARNINGS Effective Date: May 9, 2005 Revised: September 8, 2009 POLICY 1. All persons must be advised of their Charter rights
More informationIN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKPC 143 Date: August 29, 2013 Information: 37252811 Location: Moose Jaw Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Kayci Rose Rachner Appearing: Brian
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Against. Gerard Joseph MacDonald
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R v. MacDonald 2007 PESCTD 29 Date: 20070820 Docket: S1 GC-556 Registry: Charlottetown Between Her Majesty the Queen Against
More informationIn the Provincial Court of Alberta
In the Provincial Court of Alberta Citation: R. v. Clements, 2007 ABPC 220 Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Date: 20070911 Docket: 050217389P101, 103 Registry: Okotoks Allan Herbert Clements Voir
More informationDEFENDING DRINKING AND DRIVING CASES
Index A.L.E.R.T., see APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE ALCOHOL INFLUENCE REPORT, see APPENDIX G APPROVED INSTRUMENT, see APPENDIX C APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE Charter violations 4.8 Conduct of test calibration
More informationCitation: R. v. Smith, 2003 YKTC 52 Date: Docket: T.C Registry: Whitehorse Trial Heard: Carcross
Citation: R. v. Smith, 2003 YKTC 52 Date: 20030725 Docket: T.C. 02-00513 Registry: Whitehorse Trial Heard: Carcross IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF YUKON Before: His Honour Chief Judge Lilles Regina v. Tommy
More informationCase Name: R. v. Aulakh. Between Regina, and Surinder Pal Singh Aulakh. [2010] B.C.J. No BCPC M.V.R. (6th) CarswellBC 3091
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Aulakh Between Regina, and Surinder Pal Singh Aulakh [2010] B.C.J. No. 2237 2010 BCPC 277 5 M.V.R. (6th) 179 2010 CarswellBC 3091 File No. 82351-1 Registry: Port Coquitlam British
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Burrell, 2018 NSPC 9. Adam Leslie Burrell LIBRARY HEADING
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Burrell, 2018 NSPC 9 Date: 20180409 Docket: Dartmouth No. 8110547 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Adam Leslie Burrell LIBRARY HEADING
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bruhm, 2018 NSSC 295. v. Austin James Douglas Bruhm. Voir Dire Decision
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bruhm, 2018 NSSC 295 Date: 20181121 Docket: CRBW473972 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Austin James Douglas Bruhm Restriction on Publication
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Orbanski; R. v. Elias, 2005 SCC 37 DATE: 20050616 DOCKET: 29793, 29920 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Christopher Orbanski Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent -
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region, Metro North Court DATE: 2009 02 24 Citation: R. v. Gubins, 2009 ONCJ 80 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND MELISSA GUBINS Before Justice Leslie
More informationCase Name: R. v. McLean. Between Her Majesty the Queen, Crown, and Robert Andrew McLean, Accused. [2014] A.J. No ABPC 231
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. McLean Between Her Majesty the Queen, Crown, and Robert Andrew McLean, Accused [2014] A.J. No. 1137 2014 ABPC 231 Docket: 131243958P1 Registry: St. Paul Alberta Provincial Court
More informationNOTICE OF DECISION. AND TO: Chief Constable Police Department. AND TO: Inspector Police Department. AND TO: Sergeant Police Department AND TO:
IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE ACT, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 367 AND IN THE MATTER OF A REVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS OF DECEIT AND DISCREDITABLE CONDUCT AGAINST CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION TO:
More informationCanadian Criminal Law and Impaired Driving
Canadian Criminal Law and Impaired Driving H. Pruden Department of Justice (Canada) Ottawa, Ontario Abstract This article outlines the current criminal legislation directed against alcohol and drug driving
More informationVANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT PLANNING, RESEARCH & AUDIT SECTION
VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT PLANNING, RESEARCH & AUDIT SECTION ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT REPORT DATE: October 3, 2011 BOARD MEETING: October 19, 2011 BOARD REPORT # 1167 Regular TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Vancouver
More informationOntario Justice Education Network
1 Ontario Justice Education Network Section 10 of the Charter Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) (b) to be informed promptly
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Fraser, 2016 NSSC 209. Scott Douglas Fraser LIBRARY HEADING
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Fraser, 2016 NSSC 209 Date: 20160915 Docket: Hfx No. 449545 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Scott Douglas Fraser LIBRARY HEADING Appellant
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacDonnell, 2015 NSPC 69. v. Victor Felix MacDonnell
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacDonnell, 2015 NSPC 69 Date: 2015-07-27 Docket: 2730116, 2730117 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Victor Felix MacDonnell Judge: Heard:
More informationIndexed as: R. v. Proulx. Between Her Majesty The Queen, Applicant, and Guy A. Proulx, Respondent. [1988] O.J. No Action No.
Page 1 Indexed as: R. v. Proulx Between Her Majesty The Queen, Applicant, and Guy A. Proulx, Respondent [1988] O.J. No. 890 Action No. 1650/87 Ontario District Court - Algoma District Sault Ste. Marie,
More informationProsper Warning: Part 2. R. v. Weeseekase(2007) 1. By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed. I. Executive Summary
Prosper Warning: Part 2 R. v. Weeseekase(2007) 1 By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed. I. Executive Summary This is the second of a two-part series on the application of the Prosper Warning in cases where an arrested
More informationIndexed as: R. v. Coulter. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Marc Coulter. [2000] O.J. No Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario
Page 1 Indexed as: R. v. Coulter Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Marc Coulter [2000] O.J. No. 3452 Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario Duncan J. July 25, 2000. (36 paras.) Criminal law -- Offences
More informationIrrefutably Guilty? A Brief Overview of the New Impaired Driving Amendments 1 By R.S. Prithipaul
Irrefutably Guilty? A Brief Overview of the New Impaired Driving Amendments 1 By R.S. Prithipaul 1. With the implementation of Bill C-2 on July 2, 2008, Canada s impaired driving legislation has undergone
More informationBill C-2: Highlights and Issues
Nova Scotia Fall Criminal Law Conference Bill C-2: Highlights and Issues Halifax, Nova Scotia November 21, 2008 Philip Perlmutter Counsel - Crown Law Office Criminal Overview: This paper highlights some
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 24(2) OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE. Learning Objectives. Materials. Extension. Teaching and Learning Strategies
OF THE CHARTER EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE Learning Objectives To develop students knowledge of section 24(2) of the Charter, including the legal test used to determine whether or not evidence obtained through
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Sault Ste. Marie COURT FILE No.: 05-3302 Citation: R. v. Maki, 2007 ONCJ 115 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Michael Kelly, for the Crown AND ROBERT DANIEL MAKI, Joseph Bisceglia,
More informationFree to go : Detention after Grant and Suberu. of detention and established a framework to assist courts in determining when detention arises.
Free to go : Detention after Grant and Suberu Prepared by Elizabeth France 1 for the National Criminal Justice Conference, April 2012 In R. v. Grant 2 and R. v. Suberu 3 the Supreme Court of Canada expanded
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Fraser, 2018 NSPC 35. Date: Docket: Registry: Sydney Between: Her Majesty the Queen
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Fraser, 2018 NSPC 35 Date: 2018-06-05 Docket: 2769994 Registry: Sydney Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Francis Todd Fraser Judge: Heard: The Honourable
More informationPolice Newsletter, July 2015
1. Supreme Court of Canada rules on the constitutionality of warrantless cell phone and other digital device search and privacy. 2. On March 30, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled police officers
More informationYoung offender confessions: right versus required. R. v. S.S. (2007) Ont. C.A. 1. By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed
Young offender confessions: right versus required R. v. S.S. (2007) Ont. C.A. 1 By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed I. Sec. 146(2)(b)(iv) and sec. 146(6) YCJA Among the numerous controversies surrounding young
More informationPOLICE SERVICES. Presented By: JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY OF LONDON AND DISTRICT
POLICE SERVICES Presented By: JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY OF LONDON AND DISTRICT POLICE RESPONSIBILITY The police has the following responsibilities: Protect people and assets Prevent crime Enforce the law Provide
More informationBill C-46 Impaired Driving Act
Bill C-46 Impaired Driving Act CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION September 2017 500 865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél. 613 237-2925 tf/sans frais 1-800 267-8860 fax/téléc.
More informationImpaired Driving NetLetter(TM) by the Hon. Justice Joseph F. Kenkel
Page 1 Impaired Driving NetLetter(TM) by the Hon. Justice Joseph F. Kenkel Monday, November 9, 2009 Issue 70 A national bi-weekly current awareness service covering recent cases related to the prosecution
More informationEFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2011
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH, MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL ARCS/ORCS FILE NUMBER: 57200-00 SUBJECT: EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2011 POLICY CODE: IMP 1 CROSS-REFERENCE: Impaired Driving
More informationBetween Her Majesty the Queen, appellant, and Major Jay Fox, respondent. [2003] S.J. No SKCA 79 Docket: 585
Case Name: R. v. Fox Between Her Majesty the Queen, appellant, and Major Jay Fox, respondent [2003] S.J. No. 556 2003 SKCA 79 Docket: 585 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson
More informationDECISION AS AMENDED PAT. -and- LE DARREN CONSTABLE SIRIE SAULT RESPONDENTS. -and- OFFICE STATUTORY. Panel: 19, Hearing. September.
OCPC# #12-15 ONTARIO CIVILIAN POLICE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE POLICE SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. P..15, AS AMENDED D BETWEEN: PAT NISBETTT -and- APPELLANT INSPECTOR ART PLUSS SEGEANT JOSEPH TRUDEAU
More informationSECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE
SECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE : Did X violate Y s section 8 rights when they searched? : Section 8 states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. The
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE CAMERON KING
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R. v. King 2008 PESCTD 18 Date: 20080325 Docket: S1-GC-572 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE
More informationCRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2
CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSIONAL STANDARD #2 NAME OF STANDARD A GUILTY PLEA Brief Description of Standard: A standard on the steps to be taken by counsel before entering a guilty plea on behalf of a client. Committee
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Darrah, 2016 NSSC 187
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Darrah, 2016 NSSC 187 Date: 20160720 Docket: Hfx No. 437115 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Appellant Thomas Earl Darrah Respondent Decision
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 1 OF THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST
THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST Learning Objectives To establish the importance of s. 1 in both ensuring and limiting our rights. To introduce students to the Oakes test and its important role in Canadian
More information2013 Bill 32. First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 32 ENHANCING SAFETY ON ALBERTA ROADS ACT
2013 Bill 32 First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 32 ENHANCING SAFETY ON ALBERTA ROADS ACT THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION First Reading.......................................................
More informationJohn Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights Youth Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms French and English
Background Information PINK 3 John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights Youth Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms French and English GRADES 1-6 John Humphrey Centre for Peace and
More information2 [4] And further that Angelica Cechirc, Alexander Verbon, and Pavel Muzhikov and Stanislav Kavalenka, between October the 28 th, 2003, and March the
Info # 04-01374, 04-01579, 05-01037, 04-01373 Citation: R. v. Muzhikov et al., 2005 ONCJ 67 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mr. Michael Holme for the Crown AND PAVEL MUZHIKOV STANISLAV
More informationRelationship between Polygraph, Right to Counsel, and Confessions: R. v. Chalmers (2009) 1 Ontario Court of Appeal By Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc.
Relationship between Polygraph, Right to Counsel, and Confessions: R. v. Chalmers (2009) 1 Ontario Court of Appeal By Gino Arcaro M.Ed., B.Sc. I. The polygraph paradox A polygraph test is both part of
More informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
More informationSERVICES REVIEW DEPARTMENTS
DATE: February 9, 2012 SERVICES REVIEW DEPARTMENTS Provincial Offences Administration and Legal Department SERVICES Administrative Services for the Ontario Court of Justice (POA Administration) Prosecution
More informationCase Name: R. v. Murray. RE: Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent, and David Murray, Defendant/Applicant. [2011] O.J. No ONSC 2537
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Murray RE: Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent, and David Murray, Defendant/Applicant [2011] O.J. No. 2434 2011 ONSC 2537 Court File No. 65/10 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Sudbury,
More informationCHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 INTRODUCTION
110 CHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 Background INTRODUCTION The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights Act) affirms a range of civil and political rights.
More informationBetween Regina, and Uyen Bao Luu and Sarilynn Meiyung Chan. [2002] B.C.J. No BCPC 67. Burnaby Registry No
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Luu Between Regina, and Uyen Bao Luu and Sarilynn Meiyung Chan [2002] B.C.J. No. 472 2002 BCPC 67 Burnaby Registry No. 76619 British Columbia Provincial Court Burnaby, British Columbia
More informationMaxime Charron-Tousignant Dominique Valiquet. Publication No C73-E 1 September 2015
Bill C-73: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences in relation to conveyances) and the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts Publication No. 41-2-C73-E 1 September
More informationCase Name: R. v. D'Arcy. Between Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent, and Winston Matthew D'Arcy, Applicant (Accused) [2015] A.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. D'Arcy Between Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent, and Winston Matthew D'Arcy, Applicant (Accused) [2015] A.J. No. 112 2015 ABPC 6 119 W.C.B. (2d) 35 2015 CarswellAlta 145 Docket:
More informationThird Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code. D. Brian Newton, Q.C.
Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code D. Brian Newton, Q.C. Preamble Several years ago, I was approached by Victim Services of the Department of Justice in regards to providing
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA AT EDMONTON. - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT
Docket #: 130713118P1 PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA AT EDMONTON BETWEEN: JOSEPH AARON HARMS Applicant - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT TAKE NOTICE THAT the Applicant
More informationPolice v Nylprakash Nunkoo IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES NYPRAKASH NUNKOO
Police v Nylprakash Nunkoo 2016 PMP 310 Police v Nylprakash Nunkoo IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 1666/13 POLICE V NYPRAKASH NUNKOO JUDGMENT Accused stands charged of having on the 9 th of
More information$46, in Canadian Currency (In rem), Respondent. June 16, 2010; with subsequent written submissions. REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Attorney General of Ontario v. CDN. $46,078.46, 2010 ONSC 3819 COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-404140 DATE: 20100705 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Attorney General of Ontario, Applicant AND:
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Fleet, 2015 NSPC 92. v. David Richard K. Fleet. Decision on Voir Dire
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Fleet, 2015 NSPC 92 Date: 20151021 Docket: 2793474, 2793475 & 2793476 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. David Richard K. Fleet Decision
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. Dennis Lonardo : : v. : A.A. No : State of Rhode Island : (RITT Appellate Panel) :
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT SIXTH DIVISION Dennis Lonardo : : v. : A.A. No. 12-47 : State of Rhode Island : (RITT Appellate Panel) : A M E N D E D O R
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63. Her Majesty. v. Michael Anthony Brown. The Honourable Judge Paul Scovil
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Brown, 2016 NSPC 63 Date: 2016-11-04 Docket: 2802941, 2802942 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty v. Michael Anthony Brown Judge: Heard: The Honourable
More informationBiosecurity Law Reform Bill
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 15 November 2010 ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: BIOSECURITY LAW REFORM BILL 1. We have considered whether the Biosecurity
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06. In the matter between: and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06 In the matter between: THANDILE FUNDA Plaintiff and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant JUDGMENT MILLER, J.:
More informationI. INTRODUCTION 1 II. S. 146 OF THE YCJA 1 III. PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM R. V. L.T.H. 3 A. BURDEN OF PROOF 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. S. 146 OF THE YCJA 1 III. PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM R. V. L.T.H. 3 A. BURDEN OF PROOF 4 B. 146(2)(b): A CLEAR EXPLANATION IN APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE 4 C. 146(4):
More informationBill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
February 27, 2018 Via email: lcjc@sen.parl.gc.ca The Honourable Serge Joyal, P.C. Chair, Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs The Senate of Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4 Dear Senator Joyal:
More informationCriminal Law Guidebook - Chapter 3: The Criminal Justice System and Criminal Procedure
The following is a suggested solution to the problem question on page 63. It represents an answer of an above average standard. The ILAC approach to problem-solving as set out in the How to Answer Questions
More informationENTRY ORDER 2009 VT 104 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NOS & SEPTEMBER TERM, 2009
State v. Santimore (2009-063 & 2009-064) 2009 VT 104 [Filed 03-Nov-2009] ENTRY ORDER 2009 VT 104 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NOS. 2009-063 & 2009-064 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2009 State of Vermont APPEALED FROM: v. District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION. Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and-
S.C.C. No.01511 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and- Appellant HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent E.A.N. Blackburn
More informationIN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, CR DISTRICT II STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JOANNE SEKULA,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, 2001 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. Robert Albert Gibson Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent - and - Attorney General of Ontario Intervener
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Gibson, 2008 SCC 16 DATE: 20080417 DOCKET: 31546, 31613 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Robert Albert Gibson Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent - and - Attorney
More informationarrest of defendant on 3/22/16. The defendant argues that the officer lacked reasonable
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-16-1712 STATE OF MAINE v. JOSHUA HOLLAND, ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS Defendant The defendant seeks to suppress evidence obtained
More informationAPPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse County: RAMONA A. GONZALEZ, Judge. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 21, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationBill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) PREFACE...
More informationCase Name: R. v. Fitl. Between Her Majesty The Queen, and Christopher Shane Fitl, Accused. [2015] A.J. No Action No.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Fitl Between Her Majesty The Queen, and Christopher Shane Fitl, Accused [2015] A.J. No. 985 Action No.: 130198765Q1 E-File No.: ECQ15FITLC Alberta Court of Queen's Bench M.T. Moreau
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Leonard, 2007-Ohio-3312.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIMOTHY LEONARD, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationCriminal Law Guidebook Second Edition Chapter 3: The Criminal Justice System and Criminal Procedure
The following is a suggested solution to the problem question on page 69. It represents an answer of an above average standard. The ILAC approach to problem-solving as set out in the How to Answer Questions
More informationPROCEDURE Simple Cautions. Number: F 0102 Date Published: 9 September 2015
1.0 Summary of Changes This procedure has been updated on its yearly review as follows: Included on the new Force procedure template; Amended throughout to reflect Athena; Updated in section 3.8 for OIC
More informationACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession DISCLOSURE REVISITED
ACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession November 29, 2002 DISCLOSURE REVISITED Faculty: Anne Malick, Q.C. Speaking Notes Access to Solicitor/Client Privilegd Information-McClure
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9. and a hearing concerning IMRAJ SINGH GILL APPLICANT
THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 and a hearing concerning IMRAJ SINGH GILL APPLICANT 2015 LSBC 16 Report issued: April 9, 2015 Oral reasons:
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2068 September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Kehoe, Shaw Geter, JJ. Opinion by Shaw Geter, J. Filed: September
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Summary conviction appeal from a Judicial Justice of the Peace and Provincial Court Judge Date: 20181031 Docket: CR 17-01-36275 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Grant Cited as: 2018 MBQB 171 COURT OF
More informationThe Queen v. Therens, 1985
The Queen v. Therens, 1985 Therens is the first Supreme Court decision dealing with section 24, the remedy section of the Charter. Experience with the Canadian, Bill of Rights demonstrated the truth of
More informationPRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT (Criminal Code, s )
Page 1 of 17 NOTE: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT (Criminal Code, s. 625.1) 1. This form must be completed in full in all cases, and signed by the assigned counsel, or a counsel authorized to bind the, and
More informationSEARCH & SEIZURE IN CANADA. A comprehensive guide on gun owners rights and obligations. including case law reviews edition
SEARCH & SEIZURE IN CANADA A comprehensive guide on gun owners rights and obligations including case law reviews 2018 edition INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES OF POLICE OFFICERS The police use their powers in
More informationArrest and Interrogation
Arrest and Interrogation CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Police Powers 2 Questioning of Suspects by Police 2 Answering Police Questions 4 Declining to Speak to Police 5 Detention for Police Questioning
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY APPEARANCES: C. Michael Moore, Jackson, Ohio, for appellant.
[Cite as State v. Fizer, 2002-Ohio-6807.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. : Case No. 02CA4 : MARSHA D. FIZER, : DECISION
More informationISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
BAIL HEARINGS ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site: http://www.lexicongraphics.com/scdla.htm
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.
Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal Doherty, Lang and Epstein, JJ.A. September
More informationDeal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc.
Deal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc. Huy Do Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP & Antonio Di Domenico Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 1 OVERVIEW
More informationCriminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016
Police Service of Scotland Police Notebook Form 099-001 (Content) Procedure Under Section 1 (Arrest) (*) (*) (Arrests made under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Sections 6D or 7(5) of the Road
More informationWritten traffic warnings
Written traffic warnings Detailed table of contents This chapter contains the following topics: Summary Introduction Hierarchy of traffic enforcement interventions Guidance on traffic warnings Verbal warnings
More information2014 CO 49M. No. 12SC299, Cain v. People Evidence Section , C.R.S. (2013)
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationR. v. LORNA BOURGET 2007 NWTTC 13 File: T-01-CR IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.
R. v. LORNA BOURGET 2007 NWTTC 13 File: T-01-CR-2007000630 IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IN THE MATTER OF: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - LORNA BOURGET Applicant REASONS FOR DECISION
More informationREASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: Panel: Aly N. Alibhai (Chair); (Hedy) Anna Walsh and Keith Cooper, Members Re: Kevin Singh (Report No. 6888) Applicant for a Tow
More informationDNA References. Chapter 12 of Forensic Evidence in Canada, Second Edition
CML 3193 Forensic Science DNA References Textbook Chapter 12 of Forensic Evidence in Canada, Second Edition Criminal Code Sections 487.04 to 487.091, but in particular note: 487.04 Definitions and Lists
More informationv No St. Clair Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2018 v No. 337354 St. Clair Circuit Court RICKY EDWARDS, LC No. 16-002145-FH
More informationESSAY QUESTION NO. 4. Answer this question in booklet No. 4
ESSAY QUESTION NO. 4 Answer this question in booklet No. 4 Police Officer Smith was on patrol early in the morning near the coastal bicycle trail when he received a report from the police dispatcher. The
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Eric Sinns, CASE NO.: 2016-CA-977-O v. Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles,
More information