Andrew Z. Kerekes

The appellant was arrested for aggravated assault and detained for 18 hours before being formally charged, primarily to allow the police to conduct an identification parade.

At trial, the judge found the arrest unlawful and arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter, ordering a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the police had subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest under s. 450(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court further held that the 18-hour detention was not unreasonable and did not violate s. 9 of the Charter, as the identification parade was the fairest and most practical means of identification.

The appellant was subjected to a warrantless "frisk" search for drugs based on an informant's tip.

The police found speed and then arrested the appellant, advising him of his right to counsel.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding the search unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter and excluding the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the appellant was detained and his s. 10(b) right to counsel was violated by the delay in informing him, the search itself was reasonable under s. 8.

The Court further held that the real evidence obtained should not be excluded under s. 24(2) as its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellant, while intoxicated, forced two police officers from his mother's home with a shotgun.

He was acquitted at trial of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, as the trial judge found no appreciable gap between the possession and the confrontation.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and entered a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, finding that while the trial judge erred in law regarding the elements of the offence, the Court of Appeal erred in entering a conviction instead of ordering a new trial, as the trial judge had not fully considered the appellant's intoxication defence.