Investigative detention

The accused were charged with firearms offences after police entered a condominium unit under exigent circumstances to check on the welfare of a young female.

After the female was safely removed, police arbitrarily detained the accused for an extended period without advising them of the reasons for detention or their rights to counsel.

During a search incident to the arrest of one of the accused, police seized a satchel containing a firearm that was outside his physical control.

The court found multiple egregious breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm evidence under section 24(2), finding that the cumulative police misconduct would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence, including a loaded restricted firearm, found during a police investigation at an apartment building.

The police attended the building after receiving an anonymous tip about a gun.

The court found that the police breached the accused's section 8, 9, and 10(b) rights during his initial detention and search, and breached his section 8 rights by entering his apartment without a warrant.

However, the court held that neither accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway where the firearm was discovered inside a plant cylinder.

The court also upheld the validity of a subsequent search warrant for the apartment.

As a result, the firearm and evidence found during the warranted search were ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after police found a handgun in a plastic bag during a "wellness check" in a residential building stairwell.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, arguing the search violated his s. 8 rights.

The court found the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag and that the police lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention or grounds for an arrest under the Trespass to Property Act.

Finding that the officers fabricated an after-the-fact justification for the search and were not forthright with the court, the judge excluded the firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter, leading to the dismissal of the charges.

The accused brought a pretrial motion to exclude evidence of crack cocaine found on his person during a traffic stop, alleging breaches of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The police claimed they stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction and searched the accused for safety reasons after smelling burnt marijuana.

The court rejected the officers' evidence, finding the traffic stop was a pretext and the search was highly intrusive and conducted for drugs, not safety.

The court found serious breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), noting the officers' disregard for the accused's constitutionally protected rights.

The appellant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police following a 911 call reporting two men with handguns.

The police conducted a high-risk takedown and arrested the appellant.

A search incident to arrest revealed marijuana and cash, and a subsequent strip search at the station revealed cocaine.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

On appeal, he argued the police lacked objectively reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, rendering the search unlawful under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the police had objectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the detailed and corroborated information from the 911 callers.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of recognizance after police found him with crack cocaine in a bathroom of an apartment.

He appealed the convictions, arguing that the police violated his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) by unlawfully entering the apartment and detaining him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant lacked standing to assert a section 8 claim as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment, and that his brief detention and subsequent arrest did not violate his section 9 or 10 rights.

The appellant was observed acting suspiciously at a gas station and fled on foot when approached by police, leaving his unlocked vehicle behind.

Police searched the vehicle without a warrant, finding a Taser and a handgun.

The trial judge admitted the evidence, finding the search was authorized as an inventory search of an abandoned vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the vehicle was not 'apparently abandoned' and the search violated section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the Court concluded the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was excluded and acquittals were entered.

The appellant was observed street racing and subsequently abandoned his vehicle in a stranger's driveway.

Police detained the appellant, conducted a pat-down search for officer safety, and discovered the vehicle's keys.

The appellant was arrested for careless driving and outstanding warrants.

Police impounded the vehicle as apparently abandoned under s. 221(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and conducted an inventory search, discovering a loaded handgun.

The trial judge found Charter breaches under s. 10 but admitted the handgun under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and the sentence of seven years' imprisonment, finding the searches lawful and the sentence fit.

The appellant was convicted of drug and breach charges after police found cocaine during a search.

The initial investigative detention on the street was lawful, but the police subsequently arbitrarily detained the appellant in a cruiser, failed to provide him with his right to counsel, and conducted two unreasonable searches, including a strip search where an officer gratuitously inflicted pain.

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches but admitted the evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis by treating the absence of systemic police misconduct as a mitigating factor, failing to consider the impact on the appellant's Charter rights, and overemphasizing the seriousness of the charges.

The evidence was excluded and acquittals were entered.

The accused brought an application to exclude evidence under ss. 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10 following her arrest for impaired driving after a single-vehicle accident.

The accused argued her statements at the scene were statutorily compelled, her arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, and she was arbitrarily detained without being advised of her right to counsel.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the statements were compelled, that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the constellation of facts, and that the brief investigative detention prior to arrest did not engage s. 10 Charter rights.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of recognizance after police, acting on a confidential informant's tip, stopped a taxi he was in and eventually found crack cocaine in his backpack.

On appeal, the appellant argued his Charter rights under ss. 8 and 9 were breached during the traffic stop, pat-down search, and the search of his backpack at the police station.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the traffic stop was a lawful investigative detention, the pat-down was a valid safety search, and the backpack search was a lawful search incident to arrest because police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for drug offences prior to the search.

The plaintiff sued for battery, false arrest, and Charter damages after police stopped him without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, forcibly subdued him, searched his pockets and wallet, and kept him handcuffed outside in freezing conditions.

The court held there was no lawful investigative detention under the common law framework in Mann, no lawful basis for the searches, and breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court also found that one officer punched the plaintiff twice and committed battery and false arrest.

General damages of $9,000, punitive damages of $18,000, and declarations of Charter breach were awarded.

The appellant was convicted of firearm and drug offences after police found him in the backyard of a townhouse while responding to a 911 call.

The police placed him under investigative detention for trespassing and, after observing suspicious movements indicating he might be armed, conducted a safety search that revealed a loaded handgun and drugs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the safety search was unlawful and the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the safety search was justified by a reasonable belief that officer safety was at stake, and upholding the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence despite minor s. 10 Charter breaches.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police officers attended a known problem house to check on tenants and observed the accused flee into a bathroom upon seeing them.

The officers detained the accused and conducted a pat-down search, finding crack cocaine in his pocket.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the investigative detention was lawful but the search violated s. 8 based on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) because the officers acted in good faith according to the law as it was understood at the time.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial applications to exclude evidence under the Charter.

They alleged arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and right to counsel violations.

The court found that the initial investigative detentions and arrests were lawful and that the examination of the accused's shoes did not violate section 8.

However, the court found a section 9 violation for both accused because the police deliberately delayed bringing them before a Justice of the Peace within 24 hours in order to obtain statements.

Consequently, the statements made at the police station were excluded under section 24(2).

The expert evidence regarding gunshot residue and footwear impressions was ruled admissible.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited weapon and his sentence of 3.5 years' imprisonment.

He argued that his takedown and search by police breached his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the police lawfully exercised their common law power of investigative detention in a volatile situation involving a firearm.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in denying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody merely because the appellant pursued a weak Charter motion.

The Court granted enhanced credit at a ratio of 1.5:1 due to harsh remand conditions and ineligibility for remission, reducing the remaining sentence.

The constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence was deemed irrelevant as the 3.5-year sentence was otherwise fit.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the trial judge excluded evidence obtained during a warrantless search of a driver and his vehicle following a traffic stop.

The trial judge found the stop became an unjustified investigative detention and rejected the officers' safety concerns, concluding they were on a 'fishing trip'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's arguments that the trial judge made an unsupported finding of fact regarding a rolling stop and that his questioning of police witnesses created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed his drug convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding his s. 9 rights were violated by an arbitrary roadside stop.

The Crown cross-argued that the stop was lawful.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the stop was arbitrary, as the police lacked reasonable suspicion.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis by finding exigent circumstances where none existed and by relying on unsupported evidence regarding another officer's grounds to detain.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace after police found a loaded crossbow in a locked roof carrier on his car near the G20 Summit.

Following a finding of unfitness and subsequent treatment, the trial proceeded.

The court excluded the accused's statements due to a Charter s. 10(b) breach.

The Crown conceded there was no evidence of what the accused intended to do with the crossbow.

The court held that mere negligence or careless storage was insufficient to establish the requisite subjective mens rea or recklessness for the offence.

The charge was dismissed.