R. v. Egeli

2015 ONCJ 271



[67] Mr. Egeli was at the scene for 45 minutes after he was arrested. The delay at the scene provided more than ample time to allow Mr. Egeli a real opportunity to consult with counsel. He had a cell phone on him at the time of the arrest. He was placed in the back of the police cruiser while the officers secured the scene. Con- stable Mauceri acknowledged that the audio and video equipment in his police cruiser could have been turned off. This would have afforded Mr. Egeli the privacy needed for him to consult counsel. Neither Constable Mauceri nor Sergeant Strang- ways gave any evidence that there were specific concerns regarding their safety re- lated to Mr. Egeli. There was no suggestion that he was behaving in an erratic or aggressive manner. Although objectively grounded concerns about officer safety can justify a delay in either administering or implementing the right to counsel, such delays must be objectively justified in the circumstances. Unsubstantiated concerns about officer safety will simply not suffice.<P> Note: 10b serious breach [71] to [74] found but evidence not excluded under 24(2)