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 Supreme Court held that police could approach a driveway and knock on a truck window under the implied licence, but opening the door was a s. 8 search.
The three‑hour failure to facilitate access to counsel after an explicit request constituted a negligent but serious s.10(b) breach; the breach was temporally and contextually connected to the evidence seized so it was obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter; applying Grant the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence in these circumstances, therefore the evidence was excluded under s.24(2).
Source excerpt
La Cour a statué que l’accusé n’avait pas qualité pour contester l’accès aux communications sur le téléphone de Mme Tetz, celle-ci ayant consenti de façon libre et éclairée.
The deliberate operational decision to delay the appellant's access to counsel until after searches produced a serious s.10(b) breach whose impact on the appellant's security of the person and dignity outweighed society's interest in admission of the reliable, probative evidence; applying Grant the seized handgun and cash were excluded under s.24(2), convictions overturned and acquittals entered.
Source excerpt
Although the police conduct in the apartment constituted serious s.8 breaches and justified exclusion of evidence seized from the apartment, the evidence seized from the vehicles was only contextually and temporally connected and the direct Charter breaches relating to the vehicles were minor and technical; applying the Grant factors the impact on privacy was minimal, the vehicle evidence was reliable, and admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute — therefore the trial judge did not err in admitting vehicle evidence and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that consequential arrests and searches after an unlawful sniffer-dog search were Charter breaches, but the evidence remained admissible under s. 24(2).
The trial judge’s credibility-based finding that the border services officer had formed a particularized suspicion and thereby detained the respondent engaged ss.7 and 10(b), and applying the Grant factors exclusion of the evidence under s.24(2) was required; those findings were entitled to deference and the Crown’s appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court found a privacy breach in police access to inmate call detail records without authorization, but no privacy breach in copying or sharing a prison-seized list.
The trial judge erred in minimizing the seriousness of an incorrect address in a warrant, but because the erroneous address did not exist, the police had surveilled and targeted the correct residence, and the second and third Grant factors favored admission, the evidence was properly admitted and the convictions and sentence were upheld.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed: the trial judge's limited, open inquiry and discharge of the disruptive juror for misconduct did not produce a miscarriage of justice and did not require a mistrial; the application judge correctly found s.8 breaches and reasonably exercised discretion to exclude the improperly obtained map evidence under s.24(2); and the exclusion of certain hearsay statements was justified because they lacked reliability given the declarant's mental health and lack of corroboration.
Source excerpt
Explore more
