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. dismisses an appeal from drug convictions, upholding the trial judge’s s. 24(2) ruling after a serious but unintentional s. 10(b) breach.
Voir dire on strip searches and counsel rights: the court found s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter breaches, and reserved the s. 24(2) exclusion issue.
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
The court dismissed a s. 24(2) Charter application, holding the drugs and records were too remote from the s. 8 strip-search breach and s. 10 delay.
Crown failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that officers had objective and subjective reasonable and probable grounds to conduct the strip search; the search also violated multiple Golden standards (excessive number of officers, lack of privacy with door open, coercion by threat of force, absence of documentation and training); the s.8 breach was serious and undermined the integrity of the justice system such that a stay of proceedings under s.24(1) is required.
Source excerpt
The court held the warrantless arrest unlawful for lack of reasonable grounds, which also tainted the vehicle search. It also found breaches of s. 10(b) and s. 8.
The Court held the vehicle search was lawful as a search incident to a valid arrest because Officer Jackson acted as an agent of the arresting officer; the strip search complied with Golden and was also justified as a custodial safety search; even assuming a s.10(b) breach occurred, the drugs and firearm were connected to the same course of conduct but admission under s.24(2) was warranted because the breach was not egregious and the evidence was reliable and central to the Crown's case; however the sentencing judge failed to apply the principle of restraint for a young, first-time offender a…
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed the appeal: the trial judge reasonably found ongoing exigent circumstances during the resisted strip search which justified a female officer’s continued participation; there was no s.8 breach from her involvement and the trial judge permissibly considered her good faith as contextual evidence of a safety‑driven purpose; earlier Charter breaches were too remote or minor to require exclusion under s.24(2); convictions were upheld.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that an arrest based on a mistake of law breached s. 9, but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) and dismissed the appeal.
Voir dire on a s. 8 Charter challenge to a strip search at detachment. The court held the search was authorized on reasonable grounds and no breach occurred.
Explore more
