Canada Case Law

Bonn v Nova Scotia (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Court certified the proposed class action: the pleadings disclose viable causes of action for Charter breaches (ss.7,8,12) and trespass to the person and the s.15 claim need not plead a comparator group at certification; there is some basis in fact to define the class temporally from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2021 across Central Nova, Northeast Nova Scotia and Cape Breton facilities; common issues including amended Common Issue #11 (framed to ask whether the common elements of post-OAT strip searches constitute trespass to the person), aggregate damages (Common Issue #17) and non-mo…

Source excerpt

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.7 liberty and security
• Charter s.12 cruel and unusual treatment
• Charter s.15 discrimination
• S.24(1) remedies
• Trespass to the person (false imprisonment, assault, battery)

Read case analysis

Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act (Re)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court held the Charter did not apply to foreign collection of CEM or CSIS’s receipt and use of Processed CEM, but did apply to exploitation of Bulk CEM.

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Extraterritorial application of the charter
• Csis act dataset regime (ss.11.01-11.25)
• Electronic device search warrants
• Interagency information sharing
• Charter-s-8-search-and-seizure

Read case analysis

R. v. Fox

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court held that a lawyer accused of crime may invoke the innocence at stake exception to seek access to client privilege, and excluded the wiretap evidence under s. 24(2).

• Solicitor-client privilege
• Innocence at stake exception
• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Wiretap authorizations
• Obstruction of justice

Read case analysis

R. v. Shen

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the appeal: the cellphone search did not breach s.8 because videos reasonably fell within the warrant's categories and the broader search was conducted in good faith and within scope; any late disclosure of the ITO did not materially prejudice the appellant's s.7 rights given the adjournment and opportunity to bring a Charter application; and the trial judge adequately accounted for pre‑sentence custody mitigation, so no sentencing error was made.

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.7 fair trial/non-disclosure
• Scope of search warrants
• Disclosure and mistrial
• Pre‑sentence custody credit (downes/duncan)

Read case analysis

R. v. Anderson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Majority: The trial judge correctly admitted Mr. Anderson’s roadside utterances under Charter and s.24(2) analysis, there was independent evidence sufficient to put fabrication to the jury, and the fabrication instruction taken as a whole was adequate and not prejudicial; on the totality of the admissible evidence a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict, therefore the appeals are dismissed. Court reiterated that a finding of fabrication requires independent evidence and careful jury instruction distinguishing disbelief from fabrication.

Source excerpt

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.9 arbitrary detention
• Charter ss.10(a) and 10(b) right to counsel
• S.24(2) grant analysis
• Admissibility of out-of-court statements
• Fabrication of exculpatory statements

Read case analysis

R. v. Walczak

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Voir dire in R. v. Walczak: the court upheld a warrantless safety search and arrest, but found the accused’s s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached at the scene.

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.9 arbitrary detention
• Charter s.10(b) right to counsel
• Exigent circumstances
• Protective safety searches
• Warrantless entry

Read case analysis

R. v. Ajiroba

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge reasonably applied the Grant factors, correctly characterizing the s.8 breach as mid‑spectrum sloppiness rather than bad faith and concluding that admission of the firearm would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute; therefore the evidence was admissible and the convictions stand.

Source excerpt

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Application of grant factors
• Possession of firearm offence

Read case analysis

R. v. Abdelkader

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court excluded drug and fingerprint evidence after finding multiple Charter breaches, including unlawful searches, unlawful detention of property, and abuse of process.

• Charter s.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.7 abuse of process
• Criminal code s.490 detention and return of property
• Search warrants and warrantless searches
• Civil forfeiture coordination

Read case analysis

R. v. Anwyll

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On a Charter voir dire, the Court held that the traffic stop, arrests and searches breached ss. 8 and 9, and excluded all seized evidence under s. 24(2).

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.9 arbitrary detention
• Charter s.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Motor vehicle act s.73 and s.79
• Search incident to arrest
• Consequential breach / excision doctrine

Read case analysis

R. v. Jeeves

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a s. 24(2) application, holding that evidence seized after Charter breaches was admissible because the Grant balance favored admission.

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.9 arbitrary detention
• Charter s.10(a) and s.10(b) right to be informed and counsel
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Motor vehicle stops
• Possession for the purpose of trafficking

Read case analysis