MLA’s impaired driving charges stayed over Charter complaints

Charges against Mackenzie Delta MLA George Nerysoo have been stayed after his lawyer argued his Charter rights had been violated during his arrest.

Nerysoo faced two charges related to impaired driving in connection with an incident in the early hours of March 16, 2025 in Fort McPherson.

He was previously scheduled to stand trial in the community – which he represents in the legislature – on November 4.

Earlier this month, Nerysoo’s legal representation filed notice of an application to have the charges stayed on the grounds that his Charter rights were violated when he was arrested.

The notice, which has been reviewed by Cabin Radio, argued that Nerysoo was not properly informed of the reason for his arrest and not provided with a lawyer when one was requested.

On the day of the alleged offence, the notice stated, RCMP officers received three calls about a driver that could be intoxicated.

When those officers located the vehicle described by callers – Nerysoo’ vehicle – the notice stated the officers pulled up alongside his truck to speak with him.

When this happened, the notice argued, this was the equivalent of detention for the purposes of an investigation, but Nerysoo was not promptly informed of the reason.

The notice asserted a detention like this, even for investigative purposes, triggers Charter rights.

“It was not until having [Nerysoo] exit the vehicle, obtaining [Nerysoo’s] documents and making the additional observations of slurred speech and red/bloodshot eyes, that Cst Fyfe informed [Nerysoo] that he was under investigative detention and advised him of his Charter rights.” the notice stated.

When arresting officer Cst Fyfe – whose first name was omitted from the document – told Nerysoo he was being detained for an impaired driving investigation, the notice stated, Fyfe “provided a police caution from memory” and Nerysoo declined to speak with a lawyer “at this time.”

The notice argued this was not an unequivocal waiver of his right to counsel.

According to Fyfe, the notice stated, when he read Nerysoo his Charter rights, he asked him if he wanted to call a lawyer, to which he responded, “No, I want to call the Legislative Assembly.”

He was then transported to the RCMP detachment for breath samples.

The notice stated that while Nerysoo’s response included the word “no,” he had seemed to indicate he wanted to call someone for help.

“This reponse should have indicated to Cst Fyfe that [Nerysoo] may have had a different understanding of the question,” the notice stated.

However, the notice asserted, Fyfe did not ask any follow-up questions to ensure Nerysoo was waiving his right to counsel with a full understanding of what that means.

Before the breath test was administered, the notice – relying on another officer’s body-worn camera footage and audio – stated that Nerysoo said “[indiscernible] … I get a lawyer.”

To which Fyfe responds, “I asked if you –”

“– from my, uh, Legislative Assembly,” Nerysoo said.

“Ya I asked if you wanted a lawyer and you said no,” Fyfe said.

“I do! Can I talk to my lawyer?” Nerysoo was quoted as saying.

Before the samples were taken, the notice stated, Fyfe attempted to ask Nerysoo questions related to the allegations.

When another officer came to administer the breath samples, they asked Fyfe if Nerysoo wanted to speak with Legal Aid.

“No, he did not. He would like to speak to the Legislative Assembly, which is not a lawyer,” Fyfe was quoted as saying.

The notice argued that Nerysoo wanted to speak with a lawyer available through the Legislative Assembly.

Nerysoo’s counsel alleged the “Charter-infringing state conduct” was serious in this case.

“There are multiple breaches at different stages of the investigation, from the failure to inform [Nerysoo] of the reason for his arrest, to the refusal to facilitate his access to counsel, and attempting to elicit incriminating evidence from [Nerysoo] after he had asserted his right to counsel,” the notice concluded.

The application itself was never tested in court. In a filing this week, the Crown confirmed it was staying the charges. The Crown’s filing did not explain that decision.

A stay means the Crown has decided not to go ahead with a prosecution.

It isn’t the same as withdrawing the charges – a stay means the Crown could decide, later, to continue prosecuting – but often has the same ultimate effect.