Canada Case Law

R. v. Dinh

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the authorizing officer had objectively reasonable and probable grounds for the warrantless arrest based on a corroborated Crime Stoppers tip and surveillance; the initial 47‑minute delay in facilitating counsel was reasonable in all the circumstances; although the trial judge erred in parts of his s.24(2) assessment of seriousness, a fresh balancing of Grant factors still favoured admission because the impact on the accused was minimal and the drug evidence was reliable and central to the Crown's case.

Source excerpt

• Warrantless arrest
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Section 10(b) right to counsel
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Informer privilege

Read case analysis

R. v. Ali

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario Court of Appeal held the vehicle search was lawful under the Cannabis Control Act, but a conceded s. 10(b) breach required a new trial.

• Section 8 unreasonable search
• Section 10(b) right to counsel
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Cannabis control act s.12 searches
• Racial profiling
• Constructive possession

Read case analysis

R. v. Hosang

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal dismissed Jim Hosang’s appeal, upholding admission of a loaded firearm after finding no s. 8 breach, a s. 10(b) breach, and no basis to exclude the evidence.

• Section 8 search and seizure
• Section 10(b) right to counsel
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Cannabis control act s.12(3) searches
• Party liability
• Officer safety considerations

Read case analysis

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. Kurzyna

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario rejette l’appel de Kamil Kurzyna de sa condamnation et de sa peine pour possession de drogue et infractions liées aux armes à feu.

• Section 8 search and seizure
• Section 9 arbitrary detention/arrest
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Sentencing
• Traffic stop
• Section-8-search-and-seizure

Read case analysis

R. v. Watroba

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a s. 24(2) Charter application and admitted evidence from a search of the accused’s fanny pack, finding the breaches moderate and the evidence important.

• Section 8 charter search and seizure
• Section 9 arbitrary detention/arrest
• Section 10(b) right to counsel
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Search incident to arrest
• Discoverability doctrine

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. Nguyen

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court held there was no s.8 breach because the underground multi‑condominium parking area was shared and observable from public spaces; the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds when viewed cumulatively; exigent circumstances justified a limited, non‑search entry into the unit; although there was a s.10(b) breach it did not causally relate to the discovery of the seized evidence and the Grant factors favoured admission, so the evidence was not excluded and the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Section 8 reasonable expectation of privacy
• Section 9 arbitrary detention/arrest
• Section 10(b) right to counsel
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Exigent circumstances
• Warrantless entry

Read case analysis

R. v. Khouchaba

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the initial traffic stop lawful, but held that Charter ss. 10(a) and 10(b) were breached when the focus shifted, and that the trunk search breached s. 8.

• Arbitrary detention (s.9)
• Unreasonable search (s.8)
• Right to counsel (s.10(a) and (b))
• Warrantless arrest (criminal code s.495)
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Charter-right-to-counsel

Read case analysis

R. v. Cromwell

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The trial judge erred in law by failing to distinguish temporally and contextually between the gun and violence charges and the drug charge when crafting a remedy for the s.8 breach, by not considering or rejecting alternative remedies short of a global stay, and by failing to properly balance the societal and victim interests; accordingly the stay as to the gun and violence charges was vacated and those charges were remitted for a new trial.

Source excerpt

• Section 8 unreasonable search
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Stay of proceedings remedy
• Strip search law and golden guidelines
• Remedies and balancing of societal interests

Read case analysis