3 total
The court excluded a seized firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to extremely serious police misconduct.
This decision concerns a s. 24(2) Charter application to exclude evidence (a firearm) obtained following an invalid search warrant and unconstitutional police entry.
The court applied the three-factor test from R. v. Grant, finding the police conduct (gross negligence in preparing the Information to Obtain, misleading statements, lack of investigation, and warrantless entry) to be extremely serious.
While the impact on the accused's privacy interest was moderate (as he was not a resident), the seriousness of the police misconduct outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.
The court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore excluded the firearm against all accused.
Respondent ordered to make child available for legally admissible paternity test in parenting time dispute.
The applicant brought a motion for majority parenting time with a child he alleged was his biological son.
The child had lived with the respondent step-father since birth.
The applicant relied on a privately collected DNA test that was not legally admissible.
The court ordered the respondent to make the child available for a legally admissible paternity test, noting that if paternity is established, the parties should schedule a case conference to determine parenting time based on the best interests of the child.
Bill C-75 amendments restricting preliminary inquiries do not apply retrospectively to pending requests.
The Crown sought to vacate preliminary inquiries in five cases on the basis that amendments to the Criminal Code contained in Bill C-75, which came into force on September 19, 2019, retrospectively eliminated the right to a preliminary inquiry for offences punishable by less than 14 years imprisonment.
The accused had all elected to be tried by judge and jury and requested preliminary inquiries before the amendments came into force, but the inquiries had not been completed by the effective date.
The court held that the amendments do not apply retrospectively because they affect substantive rights and vested rights of the accused.
The preliminary inquiry is a substantive right that protects accused persons from exposure to unwarranted public trials.
The Crown's application was dismissed.
