Casey Hill

The police installed a video camera without prior judicial authorization to monitor activities in a hotel room registered to the appellant, suspecting it was being used as a common gaming house.

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

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, holding s. 8 was not violated.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the warrantless video surveillance violated the appellant's reasonable expectation of privacy under s. 8 of the Charter and was not justified under s. 1.

However, the Court concluded that the admission of the videotape evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2), as the police acted in good faith based on a reasonable misunderstanding of the law prior to the Charter's full development in this area.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which had set aside his acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The case involved constitutional issues regarding fundamental justice, self-incrimination, and the right to remain silent under the Charter of Rights.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed a new trial, adopting the reasons given by the Court of Appeal.

The respondent was arrested for armed robbery and informed of his right to counsel.

He stated he would not say anything until he saw his lawyer.

Despite this, police officers continued to question him without offering him the use of an available telephone, eliciting an inculpatory statement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the police violated the respondent's rights under section 10(b) of the Charter by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and by not ceasing questioning.

The Court concluded that the admission of the self-incriminatory evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under section 24(2) and dismissed the Crown's appeal, upholding the order for a new trial.

The appellant was convicted of contempt in the face of the court after repeatedly calling the Crown Attorney corrupt during proceedings.

The trial judge held a show cause hearing and convicted the appellant, imposing a fine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

On further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in proceeding summarily, that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that he was denied the opportunity to make final submissions.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the summary procedure, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no denial of natural justice.