R. v. W.F.

R. v. W.F.

The application is dismissed as untimely under Kutynec/Loveman/Dwernychuk because it was raised after Crown close without any new evidence or trial development and would prejudice trial management; alternatively, under Vukelich the defence failed to meet the higher threshold of demonstrating a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a s.10(b) informational breach, particularly given the transcript, timing during business hours, and jurisprudence that a failure to recite a number is not fatal in every case.

Citation
2023 NSSC 278
Parties
Prosecution: His Majesty the King; Accused: W.F.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Crown Close; Late Charter Application to Exclude Police Statement (s.10(b))
Outcome
Charter application dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel, S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Late Charter Application Notice, Vukelich Screening for Summary Dismissal
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Charter S.10(b) Right to Counsel S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Late Charter Application Notice Vukelich Screening for Summary Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Prosecution

W.F.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Crown Close; Late Charter Application to Exclude Police Statement (s.10(b))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Charter application raised after the close of the Crown's case can be entertained given Kutynec/Loveman/Dwernychuk principles
  2. 2 Whether the s.10(b) informational caution was deficient (duty counsel/toll-free access)
  3. 3 Whether the Crown's Vukelich screening should summarily dismiss the Charter application for lack of a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed as untimely under Kutynec/Loveman/Dwernychuk because it was raised after Crown close without any new evidence or trial development and would prejudice trial management; alternatively, under Vukelich the defence failed to meet the higher threshold of demonstrating a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of a s.10(b) informational breach, particularly given the transcript, timing during business hours, and jurisprudence that a failure to recite a number is not fatal in every case.

Court Disposition

Charter application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's s.10(b)/s.24(2) application dismissed as untimely
  • In the alternative, Crown's Vukelich application granted and no s.10(b) voir dire to be held