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 held that a backpack search during booking was not truly incidental to arrest and breached s. 8 of the Charter because the officer did not articulate a nexus to the arrest.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a conviction appeal, holding the vehicle inventory search was authorized by law and that a new detention argument could not be raised on appeal.
The inventory search was authorized and the warrantless seizure did not breach s.8; delays in informing the accused of a change in jeopardy under s.10(a) and in providing counsel under s.10(b) were either non-existent in practical effect or merely technical and did not prejudice the accused; applying Grant, the breaches did not warrant exclusion of the handgun; the sentence for the s.95(1) conviction was within reasonable discretion and not demonstrably unfit; the one-year driving prohibition properly commences upon release from custody rather than while incarcerated.
Source excerpt
Given the totality of circumstances the officer had an objectively reasonable belief of an imminent threat to public and officer safety (including intelligence from other police, presence of children, impending release of control to a tow operator and high speed/unsafe driving), the warrantless search of the vehicle was justified as a safety search, the roadside detention was not arbitrary, and despite limited ss.10 breaches the admission of the firearm and ammunition under s.24(2) was appropriate; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court held the vehicle search was lawful as a search incident to a valid arrest because Officer Jackson acted as an agent of the arresting officer; the strip search complied with Golden and was also justified as a custodial safety search; even assuming a s.10(b) breach occurred, the drugs and firearm were connected to the same course of conduct but admission under s.24(2) was warranted because the breach was not egregious and the evidence was reliable and central to the Crown's case; however the sentencing judge failed to apply the principle of restraint for a young, first-time offender a…
Source excerpt
The search of the backpack was a lawful and reasonable inventory search incident to the lawful detention and planned towing of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Act given the observable defects, lack of insurance, recent dealings of the driver with police, visible cash and officer safety concerns; therefore there was no s.8 breach and the backpack contents, the defendant's voluntary statement and the expert evidence are admissible. Alternatively, even if the search were unlawful any Charter breach was minor and the Grant factors justify admission.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Mr. Chan’s application to excise prior traffic-stop information from an ITO, finding no Charter breach on the record before it.
Appeal dismissed because the trial judge correctly applied Edwards criteria and, even assuming standing, the seizure was authorized by HTA s.221(1) as the vehicle was apparently abandoned, the subsequent inventory search was lawful and appropriately halted upon discovery of drugs, and the detention and arrest were lawful given the failure to identify and ongoing investigation including discovery of a probation breach; consequently no Charter breach required exclusion of the evidence.
Source excerpt
No common law authority justified the warrantless search, the vehicle was not 'apparently abandoned' within s.221(1) HTA, the search violated s.8 of the Charter, the evidence was excluded under s.24(2) as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and an acquittal was entered.
Source excerpt
The court held the protective pat down and limited search of pockets were justified for officer safety and the seizure of keys was incidental to an inevitable arrest; the subsequent search of the Acura was lawful as an inventory search authorized by s.221(1) HTA and did not breach s.8; the handgun was not excluded under s.24(2); and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
