David M. Rosenberg

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter.

During deliberations, the jury announced an impasse.

The trial judge exhorted the jury to reach a verdict, referencing the public expense of a new trial, the inconvenience to participants, and suggesting the minority reconsider the majority's views.

The jury returned a guilty verdict 15 minutes later.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the exhortation introduced irrelevant, coercive factors that interfered with the jury's right to deliberate freely.

The appellant, a food processing company, was convicted of purchasing and selling salmon caught by members of the Sheshaht and Opetchesaht bands under Indian food fish licences, contrary to the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations.

The appellant argued that the regulations infringed the aboriginal rights of the bands to sell fish, protected under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the exchange of fish for money or other goods was not an integral part of the distinctive cultures of the Sheshaht and Opetchesaht prior to contact with Europeans.

Therefore, no aboriginal right to sell fish was established, and the regulations were validly applied.

The accused was charged with unlawful cultivation of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Police conducted warrantless perimeter searches of the accused's property, relying on s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act, and subsequently obtained a search warrant under s. 487 of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the searches violated s. 8, and acquitted the accused.

The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act violates s. 8 of the Charter to the extent it authorizes warrantless searches outside exigent circumstances.

However, the Court found the search warrant was validly issued under the Criminal Code and that the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2), as the officers acted in good faith and the evidence was real.

The police conducted a warrantless perimeter search of the appellant's residence based on suspicion of marijuana cultivation.

During the search, they detected the odour of marijuana and heard electrical humming, which provided the grounds to obtain a search warrant.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the warrantless perimeter search was a trespass and violated the appellant's rights under section 8 of the Charter.

The Court further held that the evidence obtained from the subsequent warranted search must be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the police conduct was a flagrant violation of constitutional rights and its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.