The applicants sought to exclude evidence (firearms, ammunition, etc.) seized from their vehicle, arguing violations of their Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)).
The court found that the warrantless search of the vehicle and occupants violated ss. 8 and 9 due to the Crown's failure to prove reasonable grounds based on unreliable officer testimony regarding cannabis residue observations.
However, the court found no breach of s. 10(a) or 10(b), deeming the delays in informing of detention reasons and rights to counsel justifiable for officer safety and operational requirements.
Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court balanced the seriousness of the state conduct, the impact on Charter interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.
Despite the s. 8 and 9 breaches, which were not found to be wilful or deliberate, the court concluded that the strong societal interest in prosecuting serious firearm offences outweighed the breaches, and therefore, the evidence would not be excluded.
