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 Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from voyeurism convictions, holding the Safe Warrant was supported by sufficient grounds and no Charter breach was shown.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld conviction and sentence, found no strip-search or admissibility error, but set aside the funds forfeiture order for lack of proper process.
The Ontario Court of Appeal found the appellant was psychologically detained during a search warrant execution, but upheld admission of the statements under s. 24(2) and dismissed the appeal.
The court found a pretextual vehicle stop, unlawful downstream searches, delayed Charter warnings, and excessive force, excluding the firearms under s. 24(2).
The trial judge erred in finding breaches of ss.9 and 10(a). Section 12(3) of the CCA does not, by necessary implication, suspend s.10(b) under s.1 (Orbanski is inapplicable because s.12(3) imposes no temporal limits and permits more intrusive searches); the respondent’s s.10(b) right was breached but the breach was brief and causally unrelated to discovery of the firearms, and the s.24(2) Grant balancing favors admission. Result: appeal allowed, acquittal set aside, new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the initial stop was based on observed driving behaviour and not on race, that officers obtained lawful grounds for an oral fluid demand and a vehicle search based on observable indicators, and that although there was a modest s.10(b) delay and a s.7 concern over erased records, those breaches were not material enough under the Grant factors to exclude the firearm; therefore the convictions stand.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Schirmer’s appeal, admitted fresh evidence on ineffective assistance, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.
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
The court acquitted Stephen Michael McKnight on trafficking and silencer counts, finding the circumstantial evidence insufficient for constructive possession, but convicted him of simple possession of fentanyl found on his person.
In a voir dire, the court upheld the vehicle search incident to arrest and found the resulting drug arrests lawful, but ruled the strip search and delayed re-charter breached ss. 8 and 10.
Explore more
