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. MacSween

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Officers had objectively reasonable grounds to arrest for drug-impaired driving based on credible eyewitness accounts and police observations; the warrantless search and urine testing did not breach s.8; the delay awaiting an accredited evaluating officer and conducting the evaluation did not amount to arbitrary detention under s.9 because the demand was made and executed as soon as practicable; pre-arrest statements were not admitted for trial; on the admissible evidence the accused was proven guilty of driving while impaired by drugs under s.320.14 and not guilty of public mischief under s.…

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving
• Public mischief
• Section 8 unreasonable search
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Drug recognition evaluation
• 'as soon as practicable' requirement

Read case analysis

R. v. Gilliland

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

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.

• Arrest and detention
• Search incident to arrest
• Section 8 search and seizure
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Section 10 right to be informed
• Charter remedy s.24(2)

Read case analysis

R v Wynn

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The ASD demand and roadside detention were lawful under Criminal Code s.320.27(2) because an approved screening device was at the roadside, so the Crown was not bound to rely on the officer's stated reasonable suspicion; however the officer breached the accused's s.10(b) right to counsel by failing to provide full informational rights, failing to provide means to contact counsel of choice, and steering her to duty counsel, and the breach was established on a balance of probabilities.

Source excerpt

• S.10(b) right to counsel
• Mandatory alcohol screening
• Criminal code s.320.27(2)
• Section 8 search
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Exclusion of evidence s.24(2)

Read case analysis

R. v. Bonson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

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.

• Section 8 search and seizure
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Section 10(a)/(b) right to be informed and right to counsel
• Investigative detention
• Plain view doctrine
• Search incident to arrest

Read case analysis

R. v. Gerezghier

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Le tribunal conclut à plusieurs violations de la Charte lors de l’exécution de mandats: détention initiale valide, mais fouilles, photos, détention prolongée et saisie du téléphone illégales.

• Investigative detention
• Arrest and de facto arrest
• Section 8 charter searches
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Section 10(a)/(b) rights to counsel and silence
• Photographs as evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Williams

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for breach of the undertaking because they unreasonably failed to check Versadex, where the victim's revocable written consent was stored and readily accessible; however the search of the vehicle was independently authorized under s.12(3) of the CCA based on officers' credible observations of cannabis, and applying a fresh s.24(2) analysis the firearm evidence was admissible, so the appeal is dismissed and convictions are upheld.

Source excerpt

• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Section 8 unreasonable search
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• No-contact/consent exception to undertakings
• Cpic and police records

Read case analysis

R. v. Nguyen

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed: the application judge did not err in her s.24(2) analysis or in concluding the apartment evidence need not be excluded despite the s.8 breach because the freeze was at the less serious end, the remedy for the unlawful arrest (exclusion of drugs found on the person) was proportionate, amplification of the ITO at Step 6 to correct drafting omissions was permissible, and there was no basis to exercise residual discretion to set aside the warrant because the affiant was unaware of the earlier Charter breaches and was not put on notice to make further inquiries.

Source excerpt

• Charter s.24(2) exclusion
• Section 8 search and seizure
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Section 10(a) right to be informed
• Search warrant validity
• Amplification of information to obtain (ito)

Read case analysis

R. v. Dinh

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a Charter application to exclude evidence, holding the police had objectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused.

• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Section 24 exclusionary remedy
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Warrantless arrest
• Surveillance corroboration
• Reasonable-and-probable-grounds

Read case analysis

R. v. White

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed because the trial judge erred in her s.24(2) Grant analysis by failing to properly identify and weigh the accused's reduced expectation of privacy in the vehicle and by impermissibly relying on a later 'cumulative effect' of breaches; on a fresh Grant analysis police misconduct was not serious, the impact on Charter interests was moderate, the evidence was reliable and dispositive, and admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Source excerpt

• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Section 8 unreasonable search
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Reasonable grounds to arrest
• Confidential informant reliability
• Expectation of privacy in vehicles

Read case analysis