Canada Case Law

R. v. Buonomo

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Bail pending appeal granted because the applicant satisfied s.679(3): his appeal is not frivolous (Charter grounds carry moderate weight and could realistically lead to acquittal), he is not a flight risk and does not pose a substantial public safety risk, and public confidence in the administration of justice supports release; the agreed form bail order may issue with the Crown's GPS warning appended.

Source excerpt

• Bail pending appeal
• S.10(a) charter informational right
• S.10(b) charter right to counsel
• S.8 charter search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Vehicle search

Read case analysis

R. v. Chartrand

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Fresh evidence was inadmissible under Palmer; the trial judge properly exercised discretion in denying Garofoli leave and in finding ITOs/warrants facially sufficient under the totality of the circumstances; the constitutional challenge to s.5(2) CDSA and ACMPR was properly summarily dismissed as lacking necessary evidentiary foundation and manifestly frivolous; no s.8 breach or judicial bias was demonstrated; s.11(b) was not adjudicated on appeal because it was not raised below and the record did not warrant first‑instance appellate Jordan analysis; the 18‑month CSO and forfeiture were withi…

Source excerpt

• Search warrants and ito sufficiency
• Section 5(2) controlled drugs and substances act constitutionality
• Access to cannabis for medical purposes regulations
• Fresh evidence (palmer)
• Garofoli leave to cross-examine affiant
• S.8 charter search and seizure

Read case analysis

R. v. Hayer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted a voir dire, finding a factual dispute over how police obtained text messages said to support a production order and Charter challenges.

• S.8 charter search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Consent to search
• Production order and ito facial validity
• Vukelich threshold for voir dire
• Vukelich-threshold

Read case analysis

R. v. Dadmand

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from sexual assault convictions, holding that full disclosure of uncharged-complainant materials was not required to challenge the reasonableness of the search.

• S.8 charter search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Stinchcombe disclosure obligations
• Ex post review of electronic device searches
• Temporal limits on searches
• Uncharged complainants and disclosure

Read case analysis

R. v. Kim

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a s. 24(2) Charter application in a drug and weapons case, finding the police acted in good faith and the impugned evidence remained admissible.

• S.24(2) charter exclusion
• S.8 charter search and seizure
• Video surveillance warrants
• Reasonable expectation of privacy
• Warrant jurisdiction
• Charter-exclusion-of-evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Iraheta

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The warrant for 1 Cobbler Crescent was sufficiently particularized given the circumstances and the appellant's unit was the target; the information to obtain the warrant met the Debot standard when considered in totality; seizure and towing of the Ford Fusion from the backyard was authorized under Criminal Code s.489(1)(c) and CDSA s.11(8) and was reasonable to preserve evidence and safety; no Charter breach warranting exclusion was made out and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Search warrant particularization in multi-unit residence
• Confidential informant corroboration (debot factors)
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Seizure of property (vehicle)
• S.8 charter search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Adler

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court allowed the appeal and entered acquittals because multiple, serious Charter breaches (untimely access to counsel, unjustified strip search and bedpan vigil, warrantless entry, a tele-warrant issued without urgency and with nondisclosure/misleading facts, and unlawful searches of electronic devices) invaded privacy in body, home and devices; those breaches were cumulative and significant such that the evidence obtained was inadmissible under s.24(2).

Source excerpt

• S.8 charter search and seizure
• S.10(b) right to counsel
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Tele-warrant/urgency
• Strip search and bodily integrity
• Bedpan vigil/detention conditions

Read case analysis

R. v. Correia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a Charter challenge to a one-party consent surveillance authorization, holding the ITO could be amplified and the authorization remained valid.

• Electronic surveillance and interception authorizations
• Ito accuracy, excision and amplification
• Parole conditions and authority to vary
• S.8 charter search and seizure
• Collateral attack on administrative decisions
• Non‑disclosure/misleading information to authorizing judge

Read case analysis

R. v. Bentley

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court upheld the search warrant on review, rejected the s. 8 challenge, found a s. 10(b) delay in access to counsel, and refused automatic excision.

• S.8 charter search and seizure
• S.10(b) right to counsel
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Information to obtain (ito) sufficiency and sourcing
• Review of search warrant (garofoli/araujo standard)
• Confidential informants

Read case analysis

R. v. James

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Majority: The ITO did not contain sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice to find reasonable and probable grounds that drugs or other evidence of drug dealing would be found in the respondent's vehicle 23 days after the last implicated transaction; the resulting s.8 breach and the serious police conduct and impact warranted exclusion under s.24(2); Crown's appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• S.8 charter search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Information to obtain (ito)
• Staleness of information
• Warrant review/deference
• Grant factors

Read case analysis