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
Ont. C.A. considered whether a mistaken-identity arrest was lawful, and whether drugs and a gun found on the appellant should be excluded under s. 24(2).
Although the arresting officer sincerely believed Majcher conspired with PRC actors, the totality of circumstances known by July 16, 2023 consisted largely of unverified open‑source material, tenuous associations, and speculative inferences; those materials were not sufficiently credible or compelling to permit an objectively reasonable belief of a conspiracy to employ coercive threats under SOIA, and therefore the warrantless arrest violated section 9 of the Charter.
Source excerpt
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.
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 court dismissed a s. 24(2) Charter application and admitted evidence from a search of the accused’s fanny pack, finding the breaches moderate and the evidence important.
The court dismissed a s. 24(2) Charter application to exclude trunk evidence after finding multiple police breaches, holding admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The court upheld a protective pat-down during a dropped 911 call response, found no s. 8 or s. 9 breach, and dismissed the accused’s Charter application.
The court excluded drug evidence after finding unlawful arrest and search breaches under ss. 9 and 8 of the Charter, and held admission would disrepute justice.
The court found a pretextual vehicle stop, unlawful downstream searches, delayed Charter warnings, and excessive force, excluding the firearms under s. 24(2).
The court found the lead officer’s evidence unreliable and held that the accused was arrested without lawful grounds, making the incident search unlawful and the s. 10 delay unjustified.
Explore more
