The court found no Charter breach on the initial search or delay to counsel, but held the undercover controlled delivery exceeded the implied licence to knock and breached s. 8.
The Court concluded the trial judge did not err in his s.11(b) findings, properly characterized and allocated delay, permissibly accepted the Crown's evidentiary record concerning unforeseen counsel and witness emergencies without requiring the absent Crown to testify, and reasonably applied sentencing principles such that the 15‑month concurrent sentence was not demonstrably unfit; however, the SOIRA order was unlawful insofar as it imposed a 10‑year term when statute required a minimum 20‑year term given the applicable maximum penalty, and the appropriate remedy was substitution of a 20‑yea…
Source excerpt
Child luring
S.11(b) reasonable time
Search and seizure / garofoli authorizations
S.8 charter issues
Soira (sex offender information registration) order
The provincial court judge lacks jurisdiction to quash subpoenas issued under s.698 or to entertain a party's application to excuse subpoenaed witnesses under s.700(2); s.700(2) governs the obligations of subpoenaed persons and only those persons may seek to be excused, therefore the proper remedy to challenge a subpoena is by application to a superior court (certiorari).
The Federal Court dismissed an inmate’s damages action alleging second-hand smoke exposure at Warkworth Institution from smudging and contraband tobacco.
On the facts the predominant purpose of the CRA inquiries did not become the determination of penal liability until after the auditors' interviews concluded on October 7, 2015 (and formal CID referral/acceptance occurred in Feb–Jun 2016); therefore Charter ss.7 and 8 were not infringed by the audit conduct and evidence obtained during the audit is admissible.
Constable Haight had both subjective belief and objectively reasonable grounds to arrest based on the totality of factors (speeding rental vehicle, travel direction, timing, blinds/tint, visible cardboard cases with identifying markings and officer interdiction training); the cardboard cases were lawfully observed under the plain view doctrine and opening a case was a lawful search incidental to arrest; Adwan’s s.10 rights were not breached as translator steps were taken promptly; Alharoun experienced a breach of s.10(a) and the implementational component of s.10(b) (delay and failure to faci…
Source excerpt
Section 8 unreasonable search
Section 9 arbitrary detention/arrest
Section 10(a)/(b) right to be informed and right to counsel
Both strip searches violated s.8 because they were conducted in the field without demonstrated exigent circumstances justifying a field search, but on a s.24(2) analysis the evidence was not excluded because the violation was not serious in context (police acted in good faith and searches were minimally intrusive), the evidence was highly reliable and society's interest in adjudication on the merits prevailed; accordingly the convictions are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
The Court deferred to the trial judge's factual findings and held that, when viewed in their totality, the objectively discernible facts available to police were capable of grounding a reasonable suspicion that the appellant was committing trespass or liquor-related offences; therefore the detention was not arbitrary under s.9 and the appeal was dismissed.
Section 4(6) of the Canada Evidence Act, properly interpreted purposively and in light of pre-existing Supreme Court authority, does not bar a trial judge from instructing a jury that an accused’s failure to testify cannot be used as evidence of guilt; so interpreted s.4(6) is constitutional. The trial judge’s omission to give that specific instruction did not amount to reversible error given the full jury charge (presumption of innocence, burden on Crown, evidence-only verdicts) and the context of counsel submissions. The admission of the handwritten notations was harmless in light of overwh…