Case information

Charter of Rights — Right to counsel — Exclusion of evidence — Whether a failure to inform a detained person of their right to counsel coupled with that person’s subsequent consent to the drawing of blood for medical purposes is different in principle to a situation where the implementational aspect of his s. 10(b) rights is delayed leading to the decision to allow blood to be drawn for medical purposes — Whether the principles from R. v. Taylor, 2014 SCC 50, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 495, regarding the implementational component of s. 10(b) apply equally to the informational component of s. 10(b) — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence relating to the psychological detention of the applicant such that it failed to apply the principle in R v. Taylor — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in misapplying the principle in R v. Taylor by concluding that once a detention had occurred and the police failed to provide the applicant with his s. 10(b) rights there was no nexus between that blood sample and the violation of these s. 10(b) rights that would necessitate the exclusion of the blood sample and its analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 10(b), 24(2).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant was driving his truck home when he collided head-on with a vehicle containing four individuals. Two of the individuals died and two others sustained serious injuries. The applicant was injured and was taken to the hospital. The applicant was charged with eight impaired and dangerous driving related charges. The trial judge held that the applicant’s s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached, excluded the evidence, and acquitted the applicant. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge made numerous errors which had a material bearing on the acquittals. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals, and ordered a new trial.