Canada Case Law

R. v. Buonomo

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

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

• Bail pending appeal
• S.10(a) charter informational right
• S.10(b) charter right to counsel
• S.8 charter search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Vehicle search

Read case analysis

R. v. Anderson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that a Jeep search began within the warrant time window and was not unreasonable, so the s. 8 Charter application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

• Section 8 charter
• Search warrant time limits
• Vehicle search
• Exclusion of evidence s.24(2)
• Voir dire
• Search-warrant-time-limits

Read case analysis

R. v. Balendra

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Court held appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the USB key; both warrantless searches of the USB key (March 13 and March 19) were not truly incidental to the arrest and thus breached s.8; the search of the impounded van was lawful because appellant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen vehicle; notwithstanding the Charter breaches concerning the USB key, the evidence was not excluded under s.24(2) because the impact on the accused was limited and society's interest in adjudicating credit-card fraud outweighed exclusion; sentencing judge did not err and the fo…

Source excerpt

• Search incident to arrest
• Warrantless digital search
• Reasonable expectation of privacy
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Vehicle search
• Sentencing principles (rehabilitation, deterrence, denunciation)

Read case analysis

R. v. Murphy

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The arrest and searches were lawful because officers had a credibly-based probability (reasonable grounds) grounded in a reliable confidential informant and corroborative surveillance observations; the search incident to arrest and vehicle search were justified and, alternatively, even if any Charter breach occurred the s.24(2) factors weigh in favour of admitting the evidence.

Source excerpt

• Warrantless arrest
• Search incident to arrest
• Informant reliability
• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Reasonable grounds
• Vehicle search

Read case analysis

R. v. Robertson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found s. 8 breaches in a rushed knock-and-announce entry and in seizing miscellaneous items, while upholding seizure of firearms in safes and a vehicle safety search.

• Knock and announce
• Overseizure
• Section 8 charter
• Section 10(b) charter
• Right to counsel
• S.489 criminal code (offence-related property)

Read case analysis

R. v. Russell

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that while the initial vehicle stop was reasonable, the later vehicle search and post-release cell phone search were warrantless, unjustified, and violated s. 8.

• Section 8 charter
• Warrantless search
• Consent to search
• Vehicle search
• Cell phone search
• Wiretap authorization (garofoli)

Read case analysis

R. v. Jones

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On a Charter voir dire, the Court excluded firearms and marihuana seized from Jones’s vehicle after finding arbitrary detention, unlawful arrest of a passenger, and unlawful searches.

• Charter s.8 search and seizure
• Charter s.9 arbitrary detention
• Charter s.10(b) right to counsel
• Search incident to arrest
• Exclusion of evidence s.24(2)
• Vehicle search

Read case analysis

R. v. Plummer

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

On the totality of circumstances the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion (officer safety alert, suspect's reaction and movements); the appellant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the seized firearm due to abandonment (placing the gun in another's bag then fleeing); and the search of the bag was justified as a limited extension of Mann tied to immediate officer safety, therefore convictions were upheld and appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Search and seizure
• Investigative detention
• Standing
• Charter s.8
• Charter s.9
• Charter s.24(2) exclusion

Read case analysis

R. v. McKenzie

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant and search the vehicle based on corroborated informer information, DNR and tracking warrants and surveillance; applying the Grant/Harrison s.24(2) framework any Charter breach was minor and evidence was admissible; the sentence was fit and will not be altered to avoid immigration consequences.

Source excerpt

• Arrest and search incident to arrest
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Section 24(2) charter exclusion
• Vehicle search
• Pre-sentence custody credit
• Immigration consequences of sentencing

Read case analysis

R. v. Smith

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the trial judge did not err: the arrest for refusal to identify was lawful under H.T.A. s.33(3), the subsequent progressively conducted search of the vehicle for identification was reasonable in scope and did not breach s.8, the appellant failed to establish that collective knowledge rendered the search unnecessary, s.24(2) exclusion was not warranted, and the convictions and global five-year sentence were upheld.

Source excerpt

• Search and seizure
• Section 8 charter
• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Collective knowledge
• Highway traffic act s.33(3)
• Vehicle search

Read case analysis