Canada Case Law

R v Corporong

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court held that although there was an uninformed and therefore invalid consent to an on‑scene cursory viewing of the tablet (s.8 breach), the breach was of limited seriousness, the tablet had been voluntarily handed over, reasonable and probable grounds to arrest existed prior to viewing, the warrants (July 8 and August 11, 2022 ITOs) were valid after appropriate excisions and amplification, the forensic analyst’s discovery and reporting of items outside the date range did not amount to an unlawful sharing or warrantless search, and under the Grant balancing the tablet data and related ev…

Source excerpt

• S.8 unreasonable search and seizure
• S.9 arbitrary detention/imprisonment
• S.10(b) right to counsel on arrest or detention
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Voluntariness of statements
• Warrant validity

Read case analysis

R. v. Francis

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

First warrant was invalid on its face because its authorized night-time window had expired before the ITO was received and the warrant issued; however the officer's partial opening of the garage door was justified by exigent circumstances (risk to officer/public given flight of a suspect known for weapons and contextual indicators), and after excising tainted material the remaining information in the second ITO was sufficient such that the issuing justice could have properly issued the second warrant; seized items therefore remain in court custody under s.490 pending the separate forfeiture h…

Source excerpt

• Section 8 charter
• Search warrants
• Exigent circumstances
• Information to obtain (ito)
• Section 490 criminal code
• Warrant validity

Read case analysis

R. v. Pham

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial after finding the trial judge used the wrong legal test and missed key evidence on state agency.

• Section 8 charter – search and seizure
• Section 24(2) charter – exclusion of evidence
• State agent doctrine
• Reasonable expectation of privacy
• Warrantless seizure (s.489(2) criminal code)
• Standing

Read case analysis

R. v. McKnight

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a Charter application to exclude drugs and a silencer, finding the on-scene vehicle search lawful, while a 31-minute delay in advising counsel was a serious breach.

• S.10(b) right to counsel
• S.8 search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Vehicle tow/inventory searches
• Warrant validity
• Right-to-counsel

Read case analysis

R. v. Coghill

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held the First ITO met the threshold for a general warrant and production orders, and dismissed the accused’s facial validity challenge.

• Warrant validity
• General warrant s.487.01
• Production order s.487.014
• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(2) charter
• Cellular tower evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Katsoulis

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge did not err in refusing leave to cross-examine the affiant because any imprecise temporal terms in the ITO were not material to the central question of whether a reasonable basis existed for issuance of the warrants; the warrants were therefore valid. The sentencing judge erred in treating the duration as an aggravating factor, and in light of Crown consent, fresh evidence and substantial mitigation the nine-month custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with a nine-month conditional sentence order.

Source excerpt

• Search warrants
• Information to obtain (ito)
• Cross-examination of affiant
• Warrant validity
• Sentencing
• Conditional sentence order

Read case analysis

R. v. Kerr

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge correctly applied the Debot criteria and cautiously assessed the informant's credibility, found the omission of sentencing consideration in the ITO was inadvertent and not so grossly negligent or abusive as to subvert the pre‑authorization process under Paryniuk, and the intercepted communication (or the undercover officer's refreshed testimony) was admissible and sufficient to support convictions; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Jailhouse informant reliability
• Warrant validity
• Intercepted communications
• Garofoli application
• Debot credibility test
• Paryniuk residual discretion

Read case analysis

R. v. Reilly

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court dismissed the Crown’s appeal, upholding exclusion of evidence and a new trial after police unlawfully entered and conducted a clearing search.

• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(2) remedy
• Exclusion of evidence
• Warrant validity
• Clearing search
• Grant factors

Read case analysis

R. v. Wong

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court excluded three BlackBerry devices under s. 24(2) after finding a serious s. 8 search breach and multiple s. 10 counsel breaches.

• Section 8 unreasonable search
• Section 10 right to counsel
• Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Grant test
• Discoverability
• Warrant validity

Read case analysis

R. v. Slemko

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the trial judge wrongly quashed the search warrants by reweighing evidence and admitting unqualified expert opinion.

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Warrant validity
• Subfacial challenge to warrant
• Informant reliability
• Admissibility of expert opinion

Read case analysis