2 total
Expert opinion based on tainted physical evidence is not excludable under section 24(2).
The accused brought a supplementary application under s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude expert opinion evidence, arguing it was tainted by physical evidence previously found to be obtained in violation of his Charter rights.
The court dismissed the application, holding that expert opinion evidence does not constitute 'evidence obtained in a manner that infringed' Charter rights for the purpose of s. 24(2) exclusion.
The court clarified that s. 24(2) applies to physical, bodily, or derivative evidence, and that the admission of the expert opinion would not adversely affect the accused's ability to make full answer and defence.
Charter breaches found during investigative detention, but evidence admitted under s. 24(2) due to accused's obstruction.
The accused was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police.
After observing cannabis in the vehicle, officers detained the accused, who provided a false name.
The officers prolonged the detention to ascertain his identity and lifted his shirt to reveal identifying tattoos, leading to his arrest for breaching a release order and the discovery of cocaine.
The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).
The court found breaches of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b), but concluded under s. 24(2) that the evidence should not be excluded because the accused's obstructive conduct mitigated the seriousness of the breaches.
