All 6 - CHARTER / CONSTITUTIONAL

R v Patel – Unreported – May 14, 2018 – Toronto (OCJ – Downes): The question in this case is whether the informational component of 10(b) also requires the police to specifically ask a detainee who asserts a desire to speak to counsel whether they wish to speak to a lawyer of their choosing or to duty counsel. There is Read more...

R v Fotiou, 2018 ONSC 4958 (Sweeny): Defence Caused Delay [31] On the issue of defence caused delay, in my view, this would include the period of time from May 10, 2016, to July 19, 2016, when the matter was being adjourned for the purposes of a guilty plea. During this time, the Crown justifiably anticipates the matter will resolve. Read more...

R v Rover – 2018 ONCA 745 (Doherty): [16] The appellant was taken into custody. He was not told why he was not being allowed to speak to counsel or when he would be allowed to speak to counsel. [17] The police received the signed telewarrant at 12:50 a.m. At 2:55 a.m., a special entry team, assembled after the warrant Read more...

R v Rover, 2018 ONCA 745, [2018] OJ No 4646 (OCA – Doherty): [26] The s. 10(b) jurisprudence has, however, always recognized that specific circumstances may justify some delay in providing a detainee access to counsel. Those circumstances often relate to police safety, public safety, or the preservation of evidence. For example, in R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980, Read more...

R v W.E.Q.S., 2018 MBCA 106 (Steel): [45] Officers are not required to articulate a specific offence when arresting someone on reasonable grounds, as long as the substance of the offence is communicated to the accused and the offence contemplated by the officer falls into the category of a hybrid or indictable offence. Read more...