R v Wynn

R v Wynn

The ASD demand and roadside detention were lawful under Criminal Code s.320.27(2) because an approved screening device was at the roadside, so the Crown was not bound to rely on the officer's stated reasonable suspicion; however the officer breached the accused's s.10(b) right to counsel by failing to provide full informational rights, failing to provide means to contact counsel of choice, and steering her to duty counsel, and the breach was established on a balance of probabilities.

Citation
2024 NSPC 51
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Kaylee Louise Wynn
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter Application / Decision on Charter Applications (voir Dire)
Outcome
Court found the ASD demand lawful under Criminal Code s.320.27(2); found a breach of the accused's s.10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice; other Charter challenges under ss.8 and 9 dismissed.
Legal Topics
S.10(b) Right to Counsel, Mandatory Alcohol Screening, Criminal Code S.320.27(2), Section 8 Search, Section 9 Arbitrary Detention, Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence S.10(b) Right to Counsel Mandatory Alcohol Screening Criminal Code S.320.27(2) Section 8 Search Section 9 Arbitrary Detention +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Kaylee Louise Wynn

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter Application / Decision on Charter Applications (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown must rely on officer's reasonable suspicion to demand ASD despite ASD at roadside
  2. 2 Whether insufficient grounds for ASD demand lead to s.9 arbitrary detention and s.8 unlawful search
  3. 3 Whether the device used was an approved and functioning approved screening device

Ratio Decidendi

The ASD demand and roadside detention were lawful under Criminal Code s.320.27(2) because an approved screening device was at the roadside, so the Crown was not bound to rely on the officer's stated reasonable suspicion; however the officer breached the accused's s.10(b) right to counsel by failing to provide full informational rights, failing to provide means to contact counsel of choice, and steering her to duty counsel, and the breach was established on a balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Court found the ASD demand lawful under Criminal Code s.320.27(2); found a breach of the accused's s.10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice; other Charter challenges under ss.8 and 9 dismissed.

Orders

  • Breach of s.10(b) Charter right found; judgment accordingly
  • ASD demand and roadside detention upheld as lawful under Criminal Code s.320.27(2)