Canada Case Law

R. v. Allen-Simec

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applications dismissed. The accused failed to show a reasonable possibility that non‑production by US authorities prejudiced his ability to make full answer and defence; disclosure to date was substantial and the alleged missing material was speculative. Hearsay reliance on US law‑enforcement information in the ITOs was permissible where the RCMP used that material as a lead, corroborated it through independent Canadian investigative steps, and presented credibly based information; on the face of the ITOs an issuing judge could have been satisfied the statutory thresholds were met. No Charter…

Source excerpt

• Charter s.7
• Charter s.8
• Charter s.11(d)
• Charter s.24(1)
• Charter s.24(2)
• Stinchcombe disclosure

Read case analysis

R. v. Bhatti

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario Court of Appeal held the general warrant authorized seizure of multiple phones and the nearby door void search, so there was no s. 8 breach; appeal allowed and a new trial ordered.

• Search and seizure
• General warrant (s.487.01)
• Digital device search
• Charter s.8
• Charter s.24(2)
• Warrant interpretation

Read case analysis

Guillaume v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Motion dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with filing requirements and provide any explanation or affidavit for delay, the proposed appeal lacked merit given the Divisional Court's finding that the ACRB's decision was reasonable, and the interests of justice do not favour setting aside the Registrar's dismissal.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Dismissal for delay
• Procedural fairness
• Judicial review
• Charter s.24(2)
• Adjournment

Read case analysis

R. v. Black

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court accepted the trial judge's factual findings and concluded that, on those facts, the officers' use of force was justified under Criminal Code s.25(4) and did not breach s.7; the pat-down was a lawful safety search while the later jacket search breached s.8 but the seized drugs were admissible under s.24(2) given their discoverability and the minimal impact of the breach, therefore convictions stand and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Use of force by police
• Search and seizure
• Charter s.7
• Charter s.8
• Charter s.24(2)
• Criminal code s.25(4)

Read case analysis

R. v. Mare

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Although the applicant met the public safety onus narrowly, the enforceability factors (seriousness of the offences given drug quantities and types, surrounding circumstances, and potential for a lengthy sentence) outweigh the merits of the proposed appeal which do not clearly surpass the not frivolous standard; releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence and bail pending appeal is refused.

Source excerpt

• Bail pending appeal
• Public safety
• Public confidence in administration of justice
• Charter s.24(2)
• Charter s.10(b)
• Criminal code s.679(3)(c)

Read case analysis

R. v. Whitfield

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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

• Search and seizure
• Arrest
• Charter s.8
• Charter s.9
• Charter s.24(2)
• Admission of evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Karaim

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Charter s. 24(2) application dismissed after brief detention and s. 10 breaches; police observations of cash and baggie in a purse were admitted.

• Charter s.24(2)
• Detention s.9
• Right to counsel s.10
• Exclusion of evidence
• Search incident to vehicle search
• Charter-s-24-2

Read case analysis

R. v. Harris

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the Charter challenges lacked merit — the arrest, exigent entry to secure the unit, and the warrant were supportable and the single breach (police remaining in the unit pending a warrant) did not warrant exclusion under s.24(2) — but the trial judge’s instructions risked removing from the jury a legitimate defence based on absence of evidence and competing inferences, thereby risking an unfair trial; convictions were quashed and a new trial ordered.

Source excerpt

• Search and seizure
• Charter s.8
• Charter s.9
• Charter s.24(2)
• Warrants and exigent circumstances
• Jury instructions

Read case analysis

R. v. Gooch

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applicant satisfied the Rowbotham test on the balance of probabilities: he was refused legal aid and exhausted appeals; he is indigent and unable to retain private counsel; and there is a high degree of probability his right to a fair trial would be infringed without counsel given the seriousness and complexity of the criminal negligence causing death charge (including Charter issues, voir dire and expert evidence). The court therefore granted a conditional stay pending AGNS agreement to provide legal defence funding at legal aid tariffs.

Source excerpt

• Criminal negligence causing death
• Right to counsel
• Legal aid funding
• Rowbotham application
• Charter s.24(2)

Read case analysis

R. v. Smith

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was dismissed because the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on reliable confidential informant information and corroborating facts, and prying open the locked metal container in the appellant's car was a lawful search incident to those arrests and did not breach s.8 of the Charter.

Source excerpt

• Arrest and reasonable and probable grounds
• Search incident to arrest
• Expectation of privacy
• Charter s.8
• Charter s.24(2)

Read case analysis