Tomorrow morning Women In Canadian Criminal Defence makes our first appearance in the Supreme Court of Canada | Cour suprême du Canada intervening on a driving law case.

Not bad for an organization who just turned 4 and approaching 800 members!

We are sending a team of four amazing women to represent us. They’ve written a beautiful factum and I am incredibly proud of them.

Good luck tomorrow Kyla Lee, Megan Delaronde, Caleigh Glawson and Sweta Tejpal!

The Case Information Sheet for the SCC gives you all you need to know including a link to all the Facta filed – ours among them.

The Court will also have the live link to the webcast available – start time is 9:30 am EST – here:

https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/hearings-audiences/live-endirect/

Bookmark the case information link here:

https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/41737/

41737
Megan Rae Korduner v. His Majesty the King
(Alberta) (Criminal) (By Leave)

You can also read our Factum here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kZe3_taOhAnT9i92rDFDlq8KS8GDy_9b/view?usp=sharing

From the Court’s Summary on the Case Information Sheet

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Ms. Korduner was a motor vehicle driver involved in a two-vehicle accident. A responding police officer questioned her at the scene for approximately three minutes, during which she stated that she should not have been driving because she was drunk. Ms. Korduner was arrested for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. She refused to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device and was charged for refusing to provide a breath sample. In voir dire proceedings to determine the admissibility of Ms. Korduner’s statements, the trial judge held that Ms. Korduner’s statements were compelled by the Traffic Safety Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-6, and were inadmissible pursuant to the use immunity principle; reliance on s. 320.31(9) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as a basis for admitting the statements would breach Ms. Korduner’s rights under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and Crown counsel failed to prove the breach was justified pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter. The charges were dismissed. The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta dismissed a summary conviction appeal. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Alberta allowed an appeal and ordered a new trial.