Carolyn Noordegraff

The accused applied under ss. 8, 9, and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude cocaine and cash seized from her purse following an arrest for suspected drug-impaired driving after a motor vehicle collision.

Police arrested the accused based on observations of lethargy, erratic driving, and witness accounts but without evidence of alcohol or drug use.

The court held that the officer had only a suspicion or hunch rather than reasonable and probable grounds, rendering the arrest arbitrary and the subsequent search unlawful.

The warrantless search of the purse could not be justified as incidental to arrest.

Applying the framework from R. v. Grant, the court excluded the seized drugs and cash and entered acquittals.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence seized during a warrantless search of his person and vehicle, arguing that his arrest was unlawful and arbitrary.

The arresting officer relied on a confidential informant's tip, police surveillance, and the accused's criminal record to form reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

However, the officer knew or ought to have known that the accused's prior convictions had been overturned on appeal.

The court found that the officer lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, rendering the arrest arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter and the subsequent search unreasonable under s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the police misconduct was serious and deliberate, and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).