Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Shamaul Sutherland’s convictions and six-year sentence for cocaine and fentanyl trafficking, rejecting Charter and sentencing arguments.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a Charter appeal, holding that a 1 hour and 47 minute roadside detention for a narcotics dog search was not arbitrary under s. 9.
The Supreme Court clarified the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act’s scope and the legality of the arrest and search in R. v. Wilson.
The court found a pretextual vehicle stop, unlawful downstream searches, delayed Charter warnings, and excessive force, excluding the firearms under s. 24(2).
The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the initial stop was based on observed driving behaviour and not on race, that officers obtained lawful grounds for an oral fluid demand and a vehicle search based on observable indicators, and that although there was a modest s.10(b) delay and a s.7 concern over erased records, those breaches were not material enough under the Grant factors to exclude the firearm; therefore the convictions stand.
Source excerpt
The court struck a Charter damages claim, finding it plain and obvious the pleaded s. 7, s. 9 and s. 11(e) claims could not succeed and awarded costs to the Province.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia held that warrantless arrests of Jennifer Lindsay Manuel and Alina May Ortloff were unlawful and violated s. 9 of the Charter.
Officers had reasonable grounds for detention and safety‑based grounds for search; exigent circumstances justified any brief delay in advising of s.10(b) rights; even if rights breach occurred, s.24(2) factors warranted admission of the evidence; and the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion regarding presentence custody credit and imposed a fit sentence, therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
Court granted s.684 counsel because the applicant lacks funds, advanced an arguable ground, and cannot effectively advance the appeal without counsel: the appeal requires nuanced legal argument about the Grant first factor and the trial judge's finding of police good faith; the applicant's limited education and youth mean he cannot provide necessary legal assistance to the panel, so appointment and payment by the Attorney General under s.684(2) are warranted.
Source excerpt
The former s.24(1)(a) of the Nova Scotia Cannabis Control Act was unconstitutional and of no force and effect because it authorized standardless warrantless vehicle searches contrary to s.8 of the Charter and was not saved by s.1; the officer's hand search for the licence lacked lawful authority and violated s.8, but under s.24(2) the pepper spray evidence was not excluded because the breach, while real, was not flagrant, the impact on privacy was moderate, and society's interest in adjudication weighed heavily in favour of admission.
Source excerpt
Explore more
