R. v. Sabados (J.M.), (2015) 460 Sask.R. 269 (CA)
| Judge | Lane, Jackson and Whitmore, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan) |
| Case Date | November 21, 2014 |
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Citations | (2015), 460 Sask.R. 269 (CA);2015 SKCA 74 |
R. v. Sabados (J.M.) (2015), 460 Sask.R. 269 (CA);
639 W.A.C. 269
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.030
Jody Michael Sabados (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(CACR2437; 2015 SKCA 74)
Indexed As: R. v. Sabados (J.M.)
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Lane, Jackson and Whitmore, JJ.A.
June 23, 2015.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of, inter alia, breaching an undertaking by failing to supply a breath sample as demanded by a peace officer. He appealed the conviction.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal. The accused's right to counsel (Charter, s. 10(b)) was violated and the evidence was, therefore, excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
Civil Rights - Topic 4603
Right to counsel - General - Denial of - Remedies for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 4604
Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - The accused was charged with breaching a term of his bail recognizance that he provide breath sample upon the request of a police officer - He was not advised of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel - The trial judge convicted the accused, holding that the accused had altered his right to counsel when he agreed to the condition of release so there was no breach of s. 10(b) - The accused appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The accused's right to counsel was not affected by the term of the recognizance - There was no evidence that he had waived his right to counsel - The trial judge erred in finding that his right to counsel was not breached - The evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) - An acquittal was entered.
Civil Rights - Topic 4612
Right to counsel - General - Waiver or abandonment - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedons - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].
Cases Noticed:
Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Shoker (H.S.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 399; 353 N.R. 160; 230 B.C.A.C. 1; 380 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Morin (2009), 337 Sask.R. 144; 464 W.A.C. 144; 2009 SKCA 74, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Unruh (L.E.) (2012), 399 Sask.R. 66; 552 W.A.C. 66; 2012 SKCA 72, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Singh (J.), [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405; 369 N.R. 1; 249 B.C.A.C. 1; 414 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 20].
R. v. Cross, 2005 CanLII 40548 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.), refd to. [para. 21].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Datta (2010), 212 C.R.R.(2d) 118; 2010 ONCJ 178, refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Sinclair (T.T.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310; 406 N.R. 1; 293 B.C.A.C. 36; 496 W.A.C. 36; 2010 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40, refd to. [para. 39].
R. v. Korponey, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41; 44 N.R. 103, refd to. [para. 39].
R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479, refd to. [para. 47].
R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 48].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(b) [para. 17]; sect. 24(2) [para. 46].
Counsel:
Robert Wilson, for the appellant;
Erin Schroh, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 21, 2014, before Lane, Jackson and Whitmore, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered by Whitmore, J.A., for the court, on June 23, 2014.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14
...v. A.D.B., 2009 SKPC 120, 345 Sask. R. 134; R. v. Delacruz, 2015 MBQB 32; R. v. Tithi, 2019 SKQB 299, [2019] S.J. No. 299; R. v. Sabados, 2015 SKCA 74, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 107; R. v. Goddard, 2019 BCCA 164, 377 C.C.C. (3d) 44; R. v. Nowazek, 2018 YKCA 12, 366 C.C.C. (3d) 389; R. v. Singh, 2011 ......
-
Table of cases
...140 R v Rutten, 2006 SKCA 17 ...................................................................... 56, 59, 338 R v Sabados, 2015 SKCA 74 .........................................................................307, 341 R v Saeed, 2016 SCC 24 ......................................................
-
The Impact of the Charter
...legal disadvantage and legal jeopardy faced by detainees. To allow some period of permissible delay 106 See, for example, R v Sabados , 2015 SKCA 74 [ Sabados ], where a breath sample demand was made of an accused who was subject to a condition in a recognizance requiring him to provide one......
-
R. v. Nygard,,
...title="Saskatchewan Judgments">[2019] S.J. No. 299, at para. 14 (QL); R. v. Sabados, 2015 SKCA 74, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 107-d733204716dc&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases-ca%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A605B-GX91-JCJ5-24F7-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=281012&pdshepi......
-
R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14
...v. A.D.B., 2009 SKPC 120, 345 Sask. R. 134; R. v. Delacruz, 2015 MBQB 32; R. v. Tithi, 2019 SKQB 299, [2019] S.J. No. 299; R. v. Sabados, 2015 SKCA 74, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 107; R. v. Goddard, 2019 BCCA 164, 377 C.C.C. (3d) 44; R. v. Nowazek, 2018 YKCA 12, 366 C.C.C. (3d) 389; R. v. Singh, 2011 ......
-
R. v. Nygard,,
...title="Saskatchewan Judgments">[2019] S.J. No. 299, at para. 14 (QL); R. v. Sabados, 2015 SKCA 74, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 107-d733204716dc&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases-ca%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A605B-GX91-JCJ5-24F7-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=281012&pdshepi......
-
R. v. Stevenson, 2020 ONCJ 291
...e.g., R. v. Delacruz, 2015 MBQB 32; R. v. Tithi, 2019 SKQB 299, [2019] S.J. No. 299, at para. 14 (QL); R. v. Sabados, 2015 SKCA 74, 327 C.C.C. (3d) 107). As noted by this Court in Shoker, in the context of probation conditions, a judge does not have jurisdiction to ......
-
R. v. Netmaker,
...but I am not sure it was carried out in “good faith.” [52] R v Sabados, 2015 SKCA 74 at para 35, 460 Sask R 269 states that legal advice is necessary. The denial of an accused’s right to counsel is a serious breach.......
-
Table of cases
...140 R v Rutten, 2006 SKCA 17 ...................................................................... 56, 59, 338 R v Sabados, 2015 SKCA 74 .........................................................................307, 341 R v Saeed, 2016 SCC 24 ......................................................
-
The Impact of the Charter
...legal disadvantage and legal jeopardy faced by detainees. To allow some period of permissible delay 106 See, for example, R v Sabados , 2015 SKCA 74 [ Sabados ], where a breath sample demand was made of an accused who was subject to a condition in a recognizance requiring him to provide one......
-
The Impact of the Charter
...discussion of limits on the right to counsel in impaired-driving cases in Chapter 3, Section B(2)(a). 122 See, for example, R v Sabados , 2015 SKCA 74 [ Sabados ], where a breath sample demand was made of an accused who was subject to a condition in a recognizance requiring him to provide o......
-
Table of cases
...57, 61, 373 R v S (WEQ), 2018 MBCA 106 ........................................................................... 337 R v Sabados, 2015 SKCA 74 .................................................................. 333–34, 377 R v Saeed, 2016 SCC 24 ..................................................