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 arrest was unlawful because the available information supported only a reasonable suspicion of alcohol consumption, not objectively reasonable grounds to believe the accused had driven while impaired; the breathalyzer readings flowed from that unlawful arrest and, applying the Grant factors, must be excluded under s.24 of the Charter.
Source excerpt
On the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officer at the roadside (repeated lane swerving, extremely strong odour of alcohol at distance and up close, slurred speech, fumbling for documents, activation of wipers/high beams, bar bracelet and officer experience), the Crown proved on a balance of probabilities that the breath demand and arrest were reasonable under ss.8 and 9 of the Charter; the Crown also proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt (convictions entered; stay on impaired operation ordered).
Source excerpt
Charter voir dire on impaired-driving charges; the court found multiple breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9 and 10 arising from roadside detention, ASD delay, search, arrest, detention conditions, and lost video.
The court dismissed most battery claims arising from a nightclub arrest, finding the officers’ force justified under s. 25(1), but awarded nominal damages for unnecessary hospital handcuffing.
On the facts the trial judge did not err: the tip and prior surveillance, the hotel overdose corroborating use/storage of drugs, Gaspari's conduct re‑entering the room and timing, and the appellant's conduct in tandem with Gaspari gave reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant for possession of narcotics; the arrest and consequent search incident to arrest were lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court held that the police officers’ mistaken belief as to the appellant’s identity did not, by itself, render the arrest unlawful because they had reasonable grounds based on the information available (keyed access to a suspected stash house, time inside unit, connection to a vehicle linked to the investigation); the trial judge did not err in admitting the fentanyl under s.24(2) because the police acted in good faith as they reasonably understood the law at the time and exclusion would have long-term negative impact on the administration of justice; appeal dismissed and conviction uphel…
Source excerpt
Surveillance corroborated the anonymous tip and provided reasonable and probable grounds for arrest without an observed exchange, the ITO omissions would not have misled the issuing justice so the CDSA warrant was valid, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of choice and validly consulted duty counsel so no s.10(b) breach occurred, no Charter breaches were made hence no s.24(2) remedy, and the global sentence was reasonable and below the Crown's request; accordingly the convictions and sentence were upheld.
Source excerpt
Because the trial judge's factual findings accepting the respondents' evidence and rejecting the appellant were entitled to appellate deference, there was no factual foundation for negligent investigation or Charter breach, the denial of a jury trial was within the trial judge's discretion and the proposed fresh evidence did not meet Palmer's criteria or bear on a decisive issue, the appeal must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court upheld a warrantless arrest, roadside search, strip search, and counsel delay, finding no Charter breaches and admitting the evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Orr’s application for further disclosure about a police officer’s later misconduct investigation, finding no reasonable possibility it would assist his appeal.
Explore more
