The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained after police conducted a warrantless entry into their apartment while investigating suspected animal cruelty.
Officers forcibly entered despite the occupant repeatedly demanding a warrant and despite the absence of ongoing sounds indicating distress.
The court held that exigent circumstances did not exist and that the Crown failed to justify the warrantless search under s. 8 of the Charter.
Statements made by one accused prior to entry were admissible, but statements by the other accused obtained while she was effectively detained without being advised of her right to counsel violated s. 10(b).
Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the dog, the presence evidence, and the improperly obtained statement.
