R v Biagi

R. v. Biagi

[2014] Ontario Court of Justice
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Sheilagh O'Connell | March 27, 2014

Background

On May 22, 2011, Daniele Biagi was driving home from a Niagara Falls casino where he'd been gambling for about 10 hours. Earlier that day, he'd taken oxycodone for chronic back pain and lorazepam to help him sleep. A civilian called 911 reporting erratic driving, and police initiated a rolling block to stop Biagi's vehicle on the Queen Elizabeth Way.

When officers approached, they observed red and glossy eyes and detected an odour of alcohol on Biagi's breath. He admitted to having two beers at the casino. P.C. Bryan arrested him for impaired driving, and he provided breath samples registering 22 and 16 milligrams of alcohol per 100ml of blood — well below the legal limit of 80. The officer then demanded a drug evaluation, which revealed signs of impairment. A search of his vehicle uncovered pills containing oxycodone, lorazepam, and morphine. Urine tests later confirmed these substances in his system.

Issues

1. Did police have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Biagi and make breath, drug evaluation, and urine demands?
2. Did police comply with Biagi's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter?
3. Should evidence be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter if rights were breached?
4. Has the Crown proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

The Charter Violations That Killed the Case

Justice O'Connell found that P.C. Bryan lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest. While Bryan observed some signs of impairment (red eyes, alcohol odour), two other officers testified they saw no erratic driving. The officer relied on secondhand reports of erratic driving but never interviewed the civilian witness herself. Most critically, Bryan couldn't use an approved screening device at roadside — had she done so, she would have immediately known Biagi's blood alcohol was below the legal limit.

The court found this violated sections 8 and 9 of the Charter (protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and arbitrary detention). Additionally, while Biagi was given opportunities to speak with counsel before breath samples and drug evaluation, he wasn't offered counsel again before providing urine samples — a separate breach of his section 10(b) rights.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded all evidence obtained through these breaches. The judge emphasized that arresting someone without proper grounds is a serious violation, especially in impaired driving cases where Parliament has given police significant powers that must be exercised properly.

Key Takeaway

Police must have objectively reasonable grounds for arrest — their subjective belief isn't enough, no matter how experienced they are.

This case shows that even when someone actually has drugs in their system, Charter breaches during investigation can result in acquittal. Police shortcuts and procedural violations have real consequences, and courts will exclude evidence obtained through unlawful arrests and searches.