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 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.
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
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.
The court found the lead officer’s evidence unreliable and held that the accused was arrested without lawful grounds, making the incident search unlawful and the s. 10 delay unjustified.
Although the trial judge erred in principle by failing to assess the s.10(b) and s.8 breaches cumulatively, a fresh s.24(2) analysis reveals the breaches, while serious, had minimal impact on the appellant's Charter interests because the handgun was lawfully discovered before the breaches and was not causally tainted; balancing Grant factors the handgun's admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a Charter and Privacy Act challenge to Vancouver police use of a Public Safety Trailer outside the Chinese Cultural Centre, finding no unreasonable search, no s. 7 liberty deprivation, and no privacy tort.
Where the statutory elements of s.320.27(2) were objectively satisfied (lawful traffic stop, observed operation of a vehicle, officer in possession of an approved screening device), the ASD demand was lawful under that subsection even though the officer subjectively believed she was relying on s.320.27(1)(b); no s.8 breach arose on these facts, the informal roadside s.10(b) advice followed by a prompt verbatim reading at the detachment satisfied the informational duty, the ASD and subsequent breath samples were admissible under s.24(2), and the Crown proved the s.320.14(1)(b) over‑80 mg offen…
Source excerpt
The court granted a s. 24(2) Charter application and excluded drugs seized from a vehicle after finding multiple serious Charter breaches by police.
The court excluded the cell phone, its contents, and two sets of police photographs under s. 24(2) after finding serious Charter breaches in the arrest and search process.
The court partly granted a Charter application in a criminal matter, finding breaches tied to release on an appearance notice, a drug-investigation shift, and an unlawful trafficking arrest.
Explore more
