Canada Case Law

R. v. Clyke

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that counsel's conduct caused prejudice or rendered the trial unfair to the extent required to establish a miscarriage of justice; the late disclosure of the 15‑minute audio was a breach but did not create a reasonable probability of a different or unfair outcome; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Charter s.10(b)
• Charter s.7 disclosure
• Admissibility of statements
• Fresh evidence
• Agreed statement of facts

Read case analysis

R. v. L.J.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the facts the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the May 5, 2022 polygraph statement was voluntary; a reasonable person in the Accused's position would have felt free to leave so no detention (physical or psychological) occurred, s.10 rights were not engaged, and the statement is therefore admissible at trial.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statements
• Psychological detention
• Section 9 detention
• Section 10(a) and 10(b) right to counsel
• Polygraph evidence
• Confessions rule

Read case analysis

R. v. McGrath

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found a s.10(b) Charter breach: after paramedics cleared the accused the officer failed to turn his mind to providing an immediate opportunity to consult counsel at the roadside, causing an approx. 28 minute delay; however the ASD demand and the brief detention in the back seat were lawful and reasonable in the circumstances and the Charter breach was unintentional and of low gravity, the impugned evidence was reliable and critical to the Crown, and on balance admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so the evidence was not excluded and guilty pleas we…

Source excerpt

• Right to counsel s.10(b)
• Roadside breath screening s.320.27
• Unreasonable search and seizure s.8
• Arbitrary detention s.9
• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Approved screening device (asd) administration

Read case analysis

R. v. Butler

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside the trial judge’s exclusion ruling, and admitted the evidence because the trial judge misapprehended key evidence and failed to apply and balance the Grant factors; the postal inspector’s and police conduct did not amount to egregious state misconduct and admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Source excerpt

• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Section 8 unreasonable search and seizure
• Postal inspector powers (cpca s.41(1)(c))
• Sniffer dog searches
• Reasonable suspicion standard
• Judicial authorizations

Read case analysis

R. v. Kostuk

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove he lacked an operating mind or that police had an objectively observable reason to re-offer counsel after medication; he affirmed satisfaction with counsel before the interview; the video-recorded statement was voluntary and admissible; the trial judge properly admitted prior discreditable conduct as probative of animus, motive and identity after tailoring prejudicial details and no limiting instruction was required given the evidence and directions given; references to schizophrenia were not exploited by the Crown and the trial ju…

Source excerpt

• Right to counsel s.10(b)
• Voluntariness of statements
• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Prior misconduct/discreditable conduct evidence
• Limiting instructions and propensity reasoning
• Use of mental health evidence at trial

Read case analysis

R. v. Truong

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Although the trial judge erred in principle by failing to assess the s.10(b) and s.8 breaches cumulatively, a fresh s.24(2) analysis reveals the breaches, while serious, had minimal impact on the appellant's Charter interests because the handgun was lawfully discovered before the breaches and was not causally tainted; balancing Grant factors the handgun's admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Section 10(b) right to counsel
• Section 8 search and seizure
• Search incident to arrest
• Grant factors

Read case analysis

R. v. Ifesimeshone

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge erred as a matter of law by misapprehending and misapplying the Debot factors and by effectively requiring direct corroboration of criminal activity; on the amplified record the issuing judge could reasonably have found the confidential sources' information to be compelling and sufficiently corroborated and a nexus to the Vaughan residence existed, so the warrants could have issued, the searches were lawfully authorized, there was no s.8 breach, and the acquittals were set aside with a new trial directed.

Source excerpt

• Search warrants
• Confidential informants
• Warrant review
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(2) exclusion

Read case analysis

R. v. Sabiston

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada restored a firearms conviction, holding the trial judge did not err in the s. 24(2) exclusion analysis and that the firearm was discoverable.

• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Investigative detention
• Search incident to arrest
• Reasonable suspicion
• Discoverability
• Section-24-2-exclusion

Read case analysis

R. v. Cartmer

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge correctly applied the Vu and Debot frameworks and, on the totality of the ITO (tips from two credible CI's, an anonymous caller, and corroborating surveillance observations), there was sufficient credible and reliable evidence that an issuing justice could have reasonably concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrant; accordingly the appellate court found no reviewable error and dismissed the appeal.

Source excerpt

• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Warrant authorization
• Confidential informant reliability
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Debot criteria

Read case analysis

R. v. Attard

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the trial judge erred: Officer Ball had reasonable grounds to seize the vehicles under s.489(2)(c) after on‑scene investigation; lawful seizure permits extraction of vehicle components including the EDR; EDR data is impersonal, limited to five seconds and does not attract an objectively reasonable expectation of informational privacy after lawful seizure; exclusion under s.24(2) was not warranted. Appeal allowed, acquittal set aside, new trial ordered and EDR evidence to be admitted.

Source excerpt

• Section 489(2) seizure
• Event data recorder (edr) data admissibility
• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Reasonable expectation of privacy
• New trial

Read case analysis