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 court excluded the cell phone, its contents, and two sets of police photographs under s. 24(2) after finding serious Charter breaches in the arrest and search process.
On a voir dire, the court excluded cocaine and residence-search evidence after serious Charter breaches, including recording a detainee’s call to counsel, then dismissed all charges.
The court dismissed a Charter voir dire, finding reasonable grounds for the arrest and search of the moped, and no breach of the right to counsel requiring exclusion.
Voir dire on Charter breaches arising from a suspected dial-a-dope investigation. The court found the detention and arrests lawful, but held s. 10(a) and one s. 10(b) breach occurred.
Le tribunal conclut qu’il existait des motifs raisonnables d’arrestation et valide la fouille du véhicule, mais exclut la déclaration de l’accusée faute de preuve de volontarité.
Judge found on credibility and documentary inconsistencies that the officer arrested the accused only after discovering marijuana in an unlawful search, making the search a breach of section 8. The breach was serious, intruded on a high expectation of privacy, and exclusion of the seized eight grams of cannabis under section 24(2) was necessary to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute; no remedial finding on s.10(b) was required because rights were read after the lawful arrest as found.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge did not err: he properly excluded expert opinion that addressed legal issues and was unnecessary; he considered and rejected the s.15 discrimination claim based on findings of no entrapment and proper police conduct; he found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and no evidence of malice, which defeats malicious prosecution, and the publication of the appellant's name was routine and lawful under police media policy.
Source excerpt
Explore more
