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 William Robert Majcher’s July 18 and 19, 2023 post-arrest statements were voluntary and admissible, rejecting the claim of an evidentiary gap.
Ont. C.A. dismisses an appeal from drug convictions, upholding the trial judge’s s. 24(2) ruling after a serious but unintentional s. 10(b) breach.
The trial judge did not err in law or fact; the "one plus one" policy was not misapplied, the appellant's utterance did not alter the emergency faced by the officer who observed the appellant armed with a knife, and the appellant failed to prove the officer's use of serious force was unreasonable in all the circumstances; therefore the Charter stay was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Mr. Perri’s entrapment application, finding no reasonable suspicion before the first call and that the opening remark did not offer an offence.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that Mr. Lafrance was detained during a warrant execution, breached his s. 10(b) rights twice, and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2).
The Federal Court granted judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, finding the internal flight alternative analysis in Colombo was speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Officer Bliss's visual inspection of the vehicle, seizure of the jacket, and search of the jacket were not truly incidental to the appellant's arrest for outstanding warrants and therefore constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under s.8 of the Charter; the appellate record does not permit a reliable s.24(2) analysis, so the conviction cannot stand and a new trial is ordered.
Source excerpt
Sentencing reasons for voyeurism convictions: the court imposed a suspended sentence and six months’ probation, waived the victim surcharge, and ordered forfeiture or scrubbing of devices.
The trial judge’s acceptance of the complainant’s in-court testimony and his treatment of inconsistencies was not demonstrably wrong; because the concern about police condoning falsehoods was not raised at trial the judge cannot be faulted on appeal, and the conviction is supported by other substantial evidence; the sentence was fit and is upheld except the victim fine surcharge is removed under R. v. Boudreault.
Source excerpt
The RAD affirmed that, on the balance of probabilities, the RPD's ultimate negative credibility findings and corroboration deficiencies (including the appellant's inconsistent accounts about police treatment, the absence of expected corroborating texts/photos and evidence of the father's profile, the significant unexplained delay, and the CBSA statement that the appellant said he faced no risk) together justified rejecting the protection claim under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Source excerpt
Explore more
