R. v. Taylor

R. v. Taylor

The search warrant was set aside and an s.8 breach was established; applying the s.24(2) framework the court excluded the bulk of the material seized as admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but admitted a limited set of items that were identifiable as third‑party documents, identification, limited forensic samples and specified photographs that were not sufficiently tainted.

Citation
2000 BCSC 1869
Parties
Crown (prosecution): Her Majesty the Queen; Accused (defence): Thomas John Taylor
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Admissibility Ruling (s.24(2))
Outcome
The majority of evidence seized during the search of 73 Hays Vale Drive on February 5-7, 1998 is excluded; specified exhibits are admitted.
Legal Topics
Section 8, Section 24(2), Exclusion of Evidence, Search Warrant Validity, Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Search and Seizure Evidence Section 8 Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Search Warrant Validity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown (prosecution)

Thomas John Taylor

Accused (defence)

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Admissibility Ruling (s.24(2))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admission of evidence obtained during search would bring administration of justice into disrepute
  2. 2 Whether the search warrant must be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the accused's s.8 Charter rights were infringed

Ratio Decidendi

The search warrant was set aside and an s.8 breach was established; applying the s.24(2) framework the court excluded the bulk of the material seized as admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but admitted a limited set of items that were identifiable as third‑party documents, identification, limited forensic samples and specified photographs that were not sufficiently tainted.

Court Disposition

The majority of evidence seized during the search of 73 Hays Vale Drive on February 5-7, 1998 is excluded; specified exhibits are admitted.