The Crown appealed an acquittal after the trial judge excluded blood-sample and hospital-record evidence obtained under a valid warrant because police failed to report the seizure to a justice as soon as practicable under s. 489.1(1) of the Criminal Code.
The court held that s. 8 Charter protection extends beyond the initial taking to the continued detention of lawfully seized items, and the delayed report compromised the judicial oversight contemplated by ss. 489.1 and 490.
However, the court found the trial judge erred in the s. 24(2) analysis by failing to consider that the original seizure was warrant-authorized, the items were used only for the authorized purpose, continued detention would inevitably have been ordered, compliance was delayed rather than wholly absent, and the accused's residual privacy interest was minimal.
Balancing the Grant factors afresh, the court held admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
