Canada Case Law

R v. Chambers

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court excluded the first spontaneous utterance to Cst. Hasani because the accused was immediately and forcibly restrained without an immediate caution, constituting a breach of s.10(a) of the Charter that rendered that utterance inadmissible; the videotaped statement to Cst. Dudhatra was admissible and voluntary for the limited purpose of cross-examination because it did not meet the high threshold for oppression or otherwise vitiate voluntariness and any Charter issues did not require exclusion under s.24(2).

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statements
• Admissibility for cross-examination
• Section 10 charter rights
• Section 24(2) exclusionary remedy
• Oppression
• Fresh start doctrine

Read case analysis

R. v. Corner

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held that the appellant was detained from the time he was placed in the police interview room and that his s.9 and s.10 rights were breached beginning at the commencement of the station interview; statements taken from about 5:50 p.m. onward were obtained in violation of the Charter and, applying the Grant s.24(2) factors, should have been excluded; admission of the improperly obtained station statements was legal error warranting quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.

Source excerpt

• Section 11(b) unreasonable delay
• Informer privilege
• Expert evidence admissibility
• Psychological detention
• Section 10 charter rights
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Aeichele

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Two accused were convicted of possessing methamphetamine, cocaine and fentanyl for trafficking after police interrupted an apparent dial-a-dope drug sale.

• Possession
• Trafficking
• Search and seizure
• Section 10 charter rights
• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Circumstantial evidence

Read case analysis

Polnac v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court struck a habeas corpus application, holding it lacked jurisdiction and that the proceeding disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

• Jurisdiction
• Motion to strike
• Judicial review under irpa
• Section 10 charter rights
• Reasonable cause of action
• Motion-to-strike

Read case analysis

Kessler v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Judicial review of a roadside driving prohibition was allowed in part: the court remitted the Charter-values issue for reconsideration.

• Section 10 charter rights
• Asd demand (approved screening device)
• Reasonableness standard of review
• Remittal for reconsideration
• Credibility findings
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

R. v. Peterkin

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The officers lawfully investigatively detained the appellant and, based on the totality of objectively discernible facts (tapping at waist, blading, awkward receipt of licence, attempt to flee and resist), reasonably believed their safety was at risk and were justified in conducting a pat-down; the subsequent seizure was admissible under s.24(2) because the Charter breaches were negligent, the evidence was discoverable, and the Grant factors weighed in favour of admission; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Investigative detention
• Safety search
• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Section 10 charter rights
• Trespass to property act

Read case analysis