Canada Case Law

R v Allen

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The trial Justice of the Peace’s factual findings that the appellant was the identified driver, that his admission was voluntary, and that being in the driver’s seat with control of steering/brakes satisfied the Motor Vehicle Act definitions were reasonably open on the evidence; those findings attract deference on appeal and no palpable and overriding error or error of law was shown, so the conviction and sentence stand.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statements
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Identity and corroboration
• Definitions of ‘driver/operator/motor vehicle’
• Standard of review on summary conviction appeal
• Evidentiary sufficiency and timing of actus reus

Read case analysis

R. v. Sutherland

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Shamaul Sutherland’s convictions and six-year sentence for cocaine and fentanyl trafficking, rejecting Charter and sentencing arguments.

• Search and seizure
• Arbitrary detention
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Exclusion of evidence (s.24(2))
• Trafficking sentencing
• Search-and-seizure

Read case analysis

R. v. Garkouth, Ibrahim Hussein, and Obatusa

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that Ramadhan Ibrahim Hussein’s police statement was voluntary and admissible after a contextual voir dire analysis of the interview.

• Voluntariness of statements
• Confessions rule
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Police inducement and oppression
• Operating mind
• Police trickery

Read case analysis

R. v. Dalia

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Michael Dalia’s appeal, upholding the warrant, refusing relitigation of the cross-examination issue, and admitting the evidence despite a s. 10(b) delay.

• Search and seizure
• Judicial recusal
• Leave to cross-examine affiant
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Exclusion of evidence (s.24(2))
• Warrant sufficiency (s.8)

Read case analysis

R v LaChance

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Court found on the balance of probabilities that police conduct breached s.8 and s.10(b) but those breaches were minor, did not cause the creation of the evidentiary breath analyses, and after applying the Grant factors the admission of the breath-analysis evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute; accordingly the evidence was admitted.

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Unreasonable search and seizure (s.8)
• Exclusion of evidence (s.24(2))
• Evidentiary breath analysis
• As-soon-as-practicable (s.320.28)

Read case analysis

R. v. James

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Appellate court held the trial judge erred in his s.24(2) analysis by compartmentalizing related Charter breaches and failing to account for police dishonesty and cumulative misconduct; on re‑balance the first and second Grant factors together weighed sufficiently toward exclusion such that the drugs seized at the sally port must be excluded and convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking reversed and acquitted, while the trafficking conviction based on the officers' observational evidence was reasonable and is upheld.

Source excerpt

• Search and seizure
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Exclusion of evidence (s.24(2))
• Grant factors
• Police dishonesty
• Reasonableness of verdict

Read case analysis

R. v. Islam

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed Mr. Islam’s Charter applications, finding his warrantless arrest lawful on reasonable and probable grounds and no breach of s. 10(b).

• Warrantless arrest
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Search incident to arrest
• Confidential informant reliability
• Surveillance operations

Read case analysis

R. v. Bouthillette

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Voir dire on voluntariness: the court held the accused’s statement to police was inadmissible because oppressive conditions overbore his will.

• Voluntariness of statement
• Confessions rule
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Right to silence (s.7)
• Oppression doctrine
• Police interrogation

Read case analysis

R. v. Laughlin

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Officers had reasonable grounds for detention and safety‑based grounds for search; exigent circumstances justified any brief delay in advising of s.10(b) rights; even if rights breach occurred, s.24(2) factors warranted admission of the evidence; and the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion regarding presentence custody credit and imposed a fit sentence, therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Search and seizure
• Arbitrary detention
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Charter s.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Presentence custody credit
• Guilty plea and appellate rights

Read case analysis

R. v. Izzeddin

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the officer had reasonable and subjectively held grounds to detain and arrest the appellant, the pat-down and search of the satchel were justified for officer safety and as incident to arrest/investigative detention, the six-minute delay in advising s.10(b) was a minor breach whose impact was minimal and did not merit exclusion under s.24(2), and there was no evidentiary basis for a finding of racial profiling.

Source excerpt

• Firearms offences
• Search and seizure
• Arrest and detention
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Exclusion of evidence (s.24(2))
• Constructive possession

Read case analysis