Canada Case Law

R. v. Racine

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The application for judicial interim release was allowed because the appellant met the low threshold that the appeal is not frivolous, was likely to surrender, and detention was not necessary in the public interest; on balancing enforceability of the convictions against the need for meaningful appellate review, the court found reviewability outweighed enforceability given arguable Charter and evidentiary grounds, and that risks to public safety could be managed by conditions including a $10,000 cash deposit.

Source excerpt

• Release pending appeal under s.679(3)
• Section 11(b) unreasonable delay
• Section 8 search and seizure
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Tele-warrants
• Grant test

Read case analysis

R. v. Noel

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The seven-hour delay in facilitating counsel constituted a breach of s.10(b); the evidence was obtained in the same transaction as the arrest and therefore 'obtained in a manner' that infringed the Charter; balancing the Grant factors (seriousness of state conduct and impact on Charter interests favour exclusion; societal interest in trial merits favours admission) the long-term repute of the administration of justice requires exclusion of the impugned evidence under s.24(2).

Source excerpt

• Section 10(b) right to counsel
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Search and seizure
• Arrest and detention
• Grant test

Read case analysis

R. v. Vassel

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge erred in treating the second Grant factor as neutral because the eight-hour delay before the accused could consult counsel of choice adversely affected his Charter-protected interests; however, even if the satchel and knife were excluded, the remaining identification and corroborating evidence was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different, so the conviction appeal is dismissed and the sentence appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

Source excerpt

• S.10(b) right to counsel
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Grant test
• Identification evidence
• S.686(1)(b)(iii) curative proviso

Read case analysis

R. v. Gill

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown’s appeal, upholding exclusion of cellphone and surveillance evidence after unlawful seizure and prolonged detention breaches under the Charter.

• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(2) charter
• Warrant scope
• Seizure under s.489(1)(c)
• Detention of seized property (s.490)
• Over-seizure

Read case analysis

R. v. Beauparlant

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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

• State-funded counsel
• Section 684 criminal code
• Section 24(2) charter
• Section 9 charter
• Section 8 charter
• Grant test

Read case analysis

R. v. Hollaman

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On a voir dire, the court refused to exclude drug and firearm evidence from a residential search despite a failure to provide a telewarrant copy under s. 487.1(7).

• Exclusion of evidence
• Telewarrant (s.487.1(7))
• Section 24(2) charter analysis
• Section 8 charter (unreasonable search)
• Grant test
• Exclusion-of-evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Sparks

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The officer's stop and identity-based investigation relied on the driver's race without specific identifying particulars, constituting racial profiling and breaching ss.9 and 8 of the Charter; the self-identification evidence was excluded under s.24(2) and the charges were dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Section 8 unreasonable search
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Racial profiling jurisprudence
• Cross-racial identification
• Grant test

Read case analysis

R. v. Choi

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld Sung Hwan Choi’s conviction for trafficking-related possession, holding a booking-in waistband inspection was not a strip search and the verdict was reasonable.

• Strip search
• Section 24(2) charter
• Section 10(b) charter
• Section 8 charter
• Admissibility of evidence
• Possession for the purpose of trafficking

Read case analysis

R. v. Wong

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court excluded three BlackBerry devices under s. 24(2) after finding a serious s. 8 search breach and multiple s. 10 counsel breaches.

• Section 8 unreasonable search
• Section 10 right to counsel
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Grant test
• Discoverability
• Warrant validity

Read case analysis

R. v. B.J.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court excluded the accused’s statement under s. 24(2) after finding serious Charter breaches in police questioning and withholding the factual basis of arrest.

• S.24(2) exclusion
• Ss.10(a) and 10(b) charter rights
• Voluntariness of statement
• Right to counsel
• Right to silence
• Impeachment/cross-examination

Read case analysis