Arbitrary detention

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences and possession of cocaine for trafficking after police officers detained him on a street in Windsor, Ontario without reasonable suspicion, violating his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The trial judge found the detention arbitrary and the searches unlawful but admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the police acted in good faith.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in assessing the seriousness of the Charter breach by relying solely on the officers' subjective belief that they were not detaining the appellant.

The court found the police should have known they were exceeding their powers following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Grant, and excluded the evidence, entering acquittals on all counts.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his detention, search, and arrest in connection with a series of street robberies in the York Village area.

The court found multiple Charter violations: an unlawful detention without reasonable grounds, an illegal search, and a failure to inform the accused of his right to counsel without delay.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these violations, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and care or control of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol concentration (over 80).

The Crown alleged the defendant was found lying in the roadway at 4:16 a.m., subsequently entered his vehicle which was running, and exhibited signs of impairment.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the admissibility of breath test results on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on reasonable and probable grounds, any Charter violations were technical and cured, and the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, a Jamaican citizen and former permanent resident of Canada, was detained for five years by the Canada Border Services Agency pending removal to Jamaica following a removal order based on serious criminality.

The appellant brought a habeas corpus application and sought Charter damages under sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his detention was arbitrary, indefinite, and constituted cruel and unusual treatment.

The application judge dismissed the Charter damages claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no breach of the Charter rights and clarifying that Charter damages claims cannot be joined to habeas corpus applications.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court that set aside his acquittal on a charge of driving while over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial judge had found a breach of section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and excluded evidence obtained by police.

The appellate court refused leave to appeal, finding that the real issue involved the application of settled Charter jurisprudence to the specific facts and did not have significance to the administration of justice beyond the case itself.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The trial judge had refused to exclude evidence of cocaine and cash seized during a vehicle stop for a Highway Traffic Act offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his analysis of whether the appellant's detention became unlawful (s. 9 breach) after the HTA investigation concluded and a groundless criminal investigation commenced.

The court also found a prolonged s. 10(b) breach (right to counsel) lasting over 30 minutes.

Applying the Grant factors for s. 24(2) exclusion analysis, the court determined that the serious Charter breaches and their impact on the appellant's rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

The applicant was charged with failing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code following a single-vehicle collision.

At trial, the applicant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant was unlawfully handcuffed during the breath demand without reasonable justification for officer safety.

The handcuffing was found to be arbitrary and the breath sample demand was conducted in an unreasonable manner.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court excluded the evidence and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with possession of cannabis marijuana contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, resisting arrest contrary to the Criminal Code, and possession of counterfeit currency contrary to the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended voir-dire regarding Charter breaches.

The court found that the initial traffic stop lacked proper grounds, the arrest was unlawful and arbitrary, the warrantless search was unreasonable, the right to counsel was not properly implemented, and excessive force was used during the arrest.

All evidence was excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and refusal to provide a breath sample.

He brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence under sections 8, 9, and 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him.

The trial proceeded by blended hearing on two issues: whether the arrest and demand for a breath sample were lawful, and whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the totality of circumstances, dismissed the Charter motion, and found the defendant guilty of refusal to provide a breath sample.

However, the court acquitted the defendant on the impairment charge, finding insufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused applied to exclude the Intoxilyzer test results pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath demand, thereby violating rights under s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention).

The court found that while the officer subjectively believed reasonable and probable grounds existed, the belief was not objectively reasonable.

The court excluded the breath test evidence under s. 24(2), finding that the long-term interests of the administration of justice favoured exclusion.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "over 80" following a traffic stop in the early morning hours.

The court found that while the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the impaired driving arrest, the breathalyzer evidence was admissible under the Charter s. 24(2) test.

The court also found breaches of the accused's s. 9 rights due to arbitrary detention both at the point of arrest and through "overholding" in police custody, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings.

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of "over 80."

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit (over 80).

The Crown proved the over 80 charge through breath test results.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of impaired driving due to weak evidence of impairment.

The court also found serious Charter violations: an unlawful and arbitrary detention under section 9 based on an erroneous policy requiring out-of-province residents to post bonds, and a violation of the right to counsel under section 10(b).

The court granted a stay of proceedings on the over 80 count due to the severity of the Charter violations and the state's entrenched discriminatory release practices.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood following two driving incidents on October 1, 2010.

The Crown established that the accused drove erratically on Highway 6 and Highway 5, causing a motor vehicle collision.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples showing readings of 270 and 260 mg per 100 mL.

The defence raised multiple Charter applications challenging the arrest, detention, and destruction of surveillance recordings.

The court found no Charter breaches and convicted the accused on both charges based on eyewitness identification, observations of impaired driving, and breath test evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood following a roadside stop on June 22, 2011.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the admissibility of breath test evidence and alleging breaches of her rights.

The court found no breach of sections 7 or 11(d) regarding access to the Intoxilyzer 8000C, but found a breach of section 9 (arbitrary detention) due to over-holding for approximately 7 hours after breath tests were completed.

The court admitted the breath test evidence and found the accused guilty of the over 80 charge.

The impaired charge was conditionally stayed.

A nominal fine of $100 with enhanced credit for time served and a one-year driving prohibition were imposed as remedy for the section 9 breach.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the accused was unlawfully arrested without reasonable and probable grounds, subjected to unlawful breath and blood demands, and that his privacy interests were violated during hospital detention.

The court also found that the search warrant used to seize the blood sample was invalid due to material non-disclosure and misleading information in the Information to Obtain.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

Following a trial, the accused conceded sufficient evidence existed for conviction but argued the charges should be stayed pursuant to section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that his right to be free from arbitrary detention had been infringed.

The court found no arbitrary detention occurred and convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with possession of Oxycodone following a vehicle stop.

The sole issue was whether the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated and whether evidence should be excluded.

A detective stopped the vehicle based on surveillance of a suspected drug house.

The court found the detention was arbitrary and unlawful, lacking both statutory and common law authority.

The officer had no articulable cause to detain the accused.

The demand for identification constituted an unreasonable search.

The court excluded all evidence and acquitted the accused.

The defendant sought Charter relief following his arrest for care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs, possession of Ketamine, and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest under s. 9 of the Charter, the delay in informing him of the reasons for arrest under s. 10(a), and the legality of a Level 3 strip search conducted at the police station under s. 8.

The court found that while the arrest was lawful and the s. 10(a) delay was brief and non-prejudicial, the strip search violated s. 8 rights as it lacked the requisite justification under the Golden test.

However, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, finding that no remedy was appropriate in the circumstances.

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mgs. per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from a motor vehicle stop on January 17, 2011 in Sioux Lookout, Ontario.

The court found the accused guilty on both charges based on evidence of impaired driving indicators and breath sample analysis showing blood alcohol levels of 129 mgs. and 125 mgs. per 100 millilitres of blood.

The court rejected the accused's explanations for her behaviour and found no Charter breach regarding detention or the taking of breath samples.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown presented evidence from three witnesses and a toxicologist report.

The accused raised two Charter issues: an arbitrary detention claim under section 9 and a breach of the right to counsel of choice under section 10(b).

The court found the detention was authorized under the Highway Traffic Act despite the officer's primary suspicion regarding break-ins.

However, the court found a breach of section 10(b) when police failed to provide reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of choice, instead pressuring the accused to choose between duty counsel or no counsel.

Applying the section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence, resulting in an acquittal.