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 Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from voyeurism convictions, holding the Safe Warrant was supported by sufficient grounds and no Charter breach was shown.
First warrant was invalid on its face because its authorized night-time window had expired before the ITO was received and the warrant issued; however the officer's partial opening of the garage door was justified by exigent circumstances (risk to officer/public given flight of a suspect known for weapons and contextual indicators), and after excising tainted material the remaining information in the second ITO was sufficient such that the issuing justice could have properly issued the second warrant; seized items therefore remain in court custody under s.490 pending the separate forfeiture h…
Source excerpt
Ontario Court of Appeal set aside drug-trafficking convictions and ordered new trials after finding the trial judge erred on s. 8 standing, while upholding the verdict analysis.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Jesse Egan’s appeal from a conviction for possession of fentanyl for trafficking, upholding the vehicle warrant and refusal to allow cross-examination of the affiant.
The Court found no demonstrable error of law nor palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's reasons upholding the warrants, and therefore dismissed the appeal and refused to exclude the seized evidence.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside an acquittal, and ordered a new trial after finding the warrant review judge missed reasonable inferences from the ITO.
PacNet sought leave to appeal a disclosure decision and sending order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act; the Court dismissed the application because the alleged errors were not questions of law.
The court held the warrant adequately described the apartment, but police entry into common areas without express authorization breached s. 8. Section 24(2) was left for later submissions.
The court dismissed PacNet’s disclosure application and granted a sending order under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, with exclusions and return conditions.
The court granted further detention of seized things for eight months, finding the murder investigation sufficiently complex and ongoing but refusing the Crown’s longer request.
Explore more
