Episode

Megan Rae Korduner v. His Majesty the King (41737)

Podcast
Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (Floor Audio)
Published
Feb 18, 2026
Duration seconds
12043
Processing state
not_requested
Canonical source
https://www.scchearings.ca/e/megan-rae-korduner-v-his-majesty-the-king-41737
Audio
https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/gbt61l4fmqetp1oz/2026-02-17-41737-floor.mp3
JSON
/v1/public/podcasts/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/episodes/megan-rae-korduner-v-his-majesty-the-king-41737
Markdown
/podcast/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/megan-rae-korduner-v-his-majesty-the-king-41737.md

Actions

  • POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/episodes/megan-rae-korduner-v-his-majesty-the-king-41737/transcription-requests
    Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.
  • GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/supreme-court-of-canada-hearings-floor-audio-6708170/megan-rae-korduner-v-his-majesty-the-king-41737.md
    Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.

Summary

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. Argued Date 2026-02-17 Keywords Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Principles of fundamental justice — Self-incrimination — Criminal law — Evidence — Use immunity — Remedies — Police officer responding to motor vehicle accident questioning driver involved in accident — Statements by driver causing officer to demand breath samples in order to administer approved roadside screening device — Trial judge declaring statements to officer compelled by Traffic Safety Act — Section 320.31(9) of Criminal Code setting out that a statement to a peace officer including statement compelled under provincial Act admi…