R. v. Wade
The trial judge, when reasons and submissions are read as a whole, accepted the police evidence that established a legitimate basis for the arrest; any deficiency in phrasing did not vitiate that conclusion, and on the record the judge properly applied s.24(2) in light of R. v. Grant, therefore the conviction stands...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 208
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Jewel Wade
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Search and Seizure, Arrest Validity, Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2), Appellate Review of Reasons
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Jewel Wade
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge provided adequate reasons for accepting police evidence regarding the arrest
- 2 Whether the appellant's arrest was a pretext to search his backpack and therefore unlawful
- 3 Whether the search of the backpack breached s.8 of the Charter
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge, when reasons and submissions are read as a whole, accepted the police evidence that established a legitimate basis for the arrest; any deficiency in phrasing did not vitiate that conclusion, and on the record the judge properly applied s.24(2) in light of R. v. Grant, therefore the conviction stands and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal from conviction dismissed
- Conviction upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Wade Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-03-19 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 208 Docket numbers C49654 Judges Moldaver, Michael James; Simmons, Janet M.; Lang, Susan Elizabeth Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Wade, 2010 ONCA 208 DATE: 20100318 DOCKET: C49654 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Moldaver, Simmons and Lang JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent And Jewel Wade Appellant Jordan Glick, for the appellant Cindy Afonso, for the respondent Heard and endorsed: March 17, 2010 On appeal from conviction by Justice Richard Gates of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 24, 2008. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge failed to provide clear reasons for his implicit acceptance of Officer Gawadzyn’s evidence as to the conduct of the appellant that led to his arrest, after the ambulance left, over the evidence of Officer Tremblay. However, his failure to do so must be assessed in the context of the appellant’s fundamental position at trial – namely, that his arrest was unlawful and simply a ruse for the police to search his backpack. [2] The trial judge was clearly alive to the appellant’s fundamental position and explicitly rejected it. When the reasons and submissions are read as a whole, it is apparent that the trial judge accepted Officer Gawadzyn’s evidence and was satisfied that there was a legitimate basis for the appellant’s arrest. [3] Accordingly, we would not give effect to this ground of appeal. [4] As for the other grounds, we are not at all certain that the police breached the appellant’s s. 8 rights when they searched his backpack. Indeed, we are inclined to the view that there was no such breach. [5] Be that as it may, if there was a breach, we are not satisfied that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence, having regard to his s. 24(2) reasons and the new test enunciated in Grant. [6] Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed.