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. Hamilton

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Vivian Hamilton’s conviction appeal, rejected Charter and verdict challenges, and dismissed the sentence appeal after granting leave.

• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• S.10(b) right to counsel
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Directed verdict
• Appellate review and standard of review
• Drug-trafficking

Read case analysis

R. v. Garkouth, Ibrahim Hussein, and Obatusa

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a s. 8 standing challenge to warrantless seizure of taxi CCTV still images, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the neutral images.

• Reasonable expectation of privacy
• Cctv surveillance
• Warrantless search and seizure
• Standing to bring charter challenge
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Reasonable-expectation-of-privacy

Read case analysis

R. v. Harris

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Voir dire on strip searches and counsel rights: the court found s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter breaches, and reserved the s. 24(2) exclusion issue.

• Strip search
• Section 8 charter
• Section 10(b) charter
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Excision doctrine
• Reasonable grounds

Read case analysis

R. v. Jackson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal dismissed Tyler Jackson’s appeal, holding the seatbelt stop was lawful and the vehicle search was supported by reasonable grounds under cannabis legislation.

• S.9 detention
• S.8 unreasonable search
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Highway traffic act s.216/ s.106
• Cannabis control act s.12(3)
• Possession for purpose of trafficking

Read case analysis

R. v. Yaghoubi-Araghi

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge reasonably found s.10(b) breaches (delay and improper questioning) that ranged from moderate to serious but, because the handgun and drugs were discovered by lawful searches under the CCA and the Crown did not rely on the accused's statements, the Grant factors when balanced did not justify exclusion under s.24(2); appellate deference to the trial judge's assessment required dismissal of the conviction and sentence appeals.

Source excerpt

• S.10(b) right to counsel
• S.8 search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Grant test for exclusion
• Sentencing credit for state misconduct

Read case analysis

R. v. Dupray

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court excluded Mr. Dupray’s pre-caution admissions under s. 24(2) for a s. 10(b) breach, but admitted a loaded Glock found in plain view under a valid warrant.

• S.10(b) right to counsel
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Search warrants and night entries
• Plain view doctrine
• S.8 and s.9 charter challenges
• Section-10b-right-to-counsel

Read case analysis

R. v. Leonard

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge's reasons on both the s.11(b) and s.8 Charter applications were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review because they merely adopted Crown submissions without articulating the factual findings and legal analysis necessary to resolve contested issues (including accessibility of trunk contents under CCA s.12(2)(b)), and an appellate court will not perform the missing fact‑finding or legal analysis; accordingly the conviction is set aside and a new trial ordered on count #3.

Source excerpt

• S.11(b) unreasonable delay
• S.8 unreasonable search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Cannabis control act s.12(2)(b) and s.12(3) scope of search
• Sufficiency of reasons
• Trial fact‑finding and appellate review

Read case analysis

R. v. Jeeves

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a s. 24(2) application, holding that evidence seized after Charter breaches was admissible because the Grant balance favored admission.

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.9 arbitrary detention
• Charter s.10(a) and s.10(b) right to be informed and counsel
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Motor vehicle stops
• Possession for the purpose of trafficking

Read case analysis

R. v. Abdelkader

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held the accused retained privacy interests in a hidden vehicle compartment and its contents, found warrantless search and seizure breaches, and held the police-CFO conduct supported a s. 7 abuse of process claim.

• Section 8 charter - unreasonable search and seizure
• Section 7 charter - abuse of process / principles of fundamental justice
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Criminal code ss.489-490 detention and return of property
• Consent doctrine
• Plain view doctrine

Read case analysis