Daniel Fernando-Nunez De Santis

The applicant, Ramone Campbell, sought to exclude evidence in his trial for robbery and sexual assault, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that police violated the applicant's reasonable expectation of privacy by obtaining cellphone subscriber information and pinging data without judicial authorization or exigent circumstances, and further violated his right to counsel by delaying the advisement and questioning him before he had the opportunity to consult counsel.

These violations led to an invalid search warrant for his room.

Applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the serious and deliberate nature of the police misconduct, coupled with the significant impact on the applicant's privacy and right to counsel, outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

Consequently, the court granted the application, excluding clothing, a cellphone, and an imitation firearm found in the applicant's room.

The accused sought exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter of narcotics and a loaded firearm found after his mother opened his backpack in his bedroom while police were present.

The court held the mother was not acting as an agent of the state, but in her parental capacity after independently deciding to search the bag and asking police to attend a family dispute.

The court further held the police were lawfully present in the home and bedroom doorway by invitation, that the accused was not actually or psychologically detained before the bag was opened, and that a 12-minute delay in giving s. 10(b) rights was justified by officer safety concerns following discovery of a loaded handgun.

The exclusion application was dismissed and the evidence was admitted at trial.

The accused was charged with unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, possession knowing possession was unauthorized, and careless carrying of a firearm.

He admitted physical possession but asserted he had disarmed a gunman during a fight at a banquet hall and intended to surrender the weapon to police through the owner, while also dealing with an urgent flooding problem.

The court accepted the evidence of the accused and supporting witnesses, found his explanation credible and plausible, and held that the Crown failed to prove the requisite mens rea.

Applying the doctrine of innocent possession, the court concluded the possession was for an innocent purpose and entered acquittals on all charges.