Investigative detention

The accused, charged with ten firearm offences and one count of possession of cocaine, brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of a handgun and cocaine seized from him, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found the investigative detention was lawfully grounded in reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances, including the officer's observation of a suspected drug transaction at a location of prior drug activity.

While a s. 10(b) breach was established due to a nearly two-minute delay in advising the accused of his right to counsel upon detention, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach arose from a mistake rather than deliberate misconduct, had minimal impact on Charter-protected interests, and the reliable physical evidence was central to serious charges.

The appellant was arrested for possession of a controlled substance after a police officer, responding to a traffic collision, observed him conceal a pill later identified as gabapentin — a prescription drug the officer mistakenly believed was a controlled substance under the CDSA.

The arrest was based on a mistake of law, rendering it unlawful and arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter, and the searches of the appellant's person and car incident to that arrest breached s. 8.

The majority held that although all impugned evidence was obtained in a manner that triggered s. 24(2), the Charter-infringing conduct was inadvertent and at the less serious end of the culpability scale, the impact on Charter-protected interests was moderate, and society's interest in adjudicating serious firearms and drug offences strongly favoured admission.

The evidence was admitted and the convictions upheld.

Brown J. dissented, finding that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for various firearms offences.

He was arrested on an outstanding warrant during a search incident to arrest, in which a loaded handgun was found.

The appellant challenged the vehicle stop as violating his Charter rights to be secure from arbitrary detention, arguing the police lacked reasonable grounds for investigative detention.

The trial judge found the police had reasonable grounds to suspect a robbery suspect was in the vehicle based on the observation of red clothing matching the suspect's description.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no Charter violation.

The appellant's sentence of six years less 18 months pre-sentence custody (3 years 9 months remaining) was also upheld as fit.

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.

At a preliminary hearing, the accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences, including unauthorized possession of a handgun, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a prohibited magazine and ammunition, and breach of recognizance, arising from the discovery of a loaded handgun under a mattress in a motel room.

The Crown sought to establish that the accused possessed the firearm based on circumstantial evidence including his presence in the room, his use of a key card to access it, and his nervous demeanor upon encountering police.

The preliminary hearing judge found insufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of possession, specifically knowledge and control over the firearm, and discharged the accused on all counts.

A defendant was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in prescription drugs following a traffic stop and roadside search.

The court conducted a Charter application to determine whether evidence obtained during the stop should be excluded.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the investigative detention, the warrantless search of her purse and vehicle, and the denial of timely access to counsel.

The court found that the detention was arbitrary, lacking reasonable suspicion; the search was unlawful, as there was no valid consent and no genuine officer safety concern; and access to counsel was improperly delayed.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these Charter breaches under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop.

The Crown conceded the impaired driving charge lacked evidentiary support.

The trial judge dismissed the over-80 charge after finding that the Crown failed to establish that breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by the Criminal Code.

Multiple unexplained delays occurred: the decision to conduct field sobriety tests at a community policing centre rather than roadside caused an 11-minute delay; a 7-minute delay occurred between arrest and reading of rights; a 5-minute delay occurred before departure to the police station; and a 16-minute delay occurred at the station before the defendant spoke to counsel.

The judge found these delays collectively breached the statutory requirement and the constitutional imperative of immediacy underlying the provision.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana.

Police officers conducted a warrantless detention and search of the accused's vehicle based on suspicion arising from the manner in which the vehicle was parked.

The court found that the detention was arbitrary, lacking reasonable suspicion, and that the subsequent search was tainted by the unlawful detention.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter breaches and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The accused was charged with simple possession of crack cocaine.

The sole issues at trial were Charter violations.

The defence alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the initial detention for investigative purposes regarding a robbery was lawful, the arrest for public intoxication lacked objective grounds.

The court also found violations of the right to counsel, as the accused was not advised of his right to counsel in relation to the drug charge until over an hour after the drugs were discovered, and was further delayed in implementing that right for over six hours due to his intoxication.

The court excluded the evidence of the crack cocaine as a remedy for the Charter breaches.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the trial judge's admission of evidence of a firearm found in a vehicle he was operating.

The appellant argued he was arbitrarily detained and that police violated his Charter rights by failing to immediately advise him of the reason for detention and his rights to counsel.

The trial judge found the detention was not arbitrary, as police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on the cumulative behavior of the occupants, and found Charter violations but admitted the evidence under the R. v. Grant test.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's decision.

The Crown applied for an adjournment of a bail hearing pursuant to section 516(1) of the Criminal Code to permit further investigation, including interviews with the accused's child and a Children's Aid worker, and to conduct other police investigations.

The accused opposed the adjournment and was ready to proceed with the bail hearing.

The Justice of the Peace denied the Crown's application, finding that the reasons advanced—further investigation and investigation of a potential new charge—were insufficient to pre-empt the accused's constitutional right to a prompt determination of bail.

The bail hearing proceeded on the scheduled date.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of counterfeit marks (Canadian citizenship cards and social insurance number cards), one count of possession of property obtained by crime (licence plates), and four counts of fraud over $5,000.

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of his detention, the search of his vehicle, and a strip search conducted at the police station.

The court dismissed all Charter applications and found the accused guilty on counts relating to possession of counterfeit marks, possession of property obtained by crime, and fraud in relation to certain bank accounts.

The accused was acquitted on one fraud count.

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

Following a traffic stop, police searched a backpack belonging to the accused after detecting the smell of alcohol in the vehicle and suspecting open alcohol under the Liquor Licence Act.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) and sought exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The court held the search was lawful because the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe open alcohol was present and conducted the search reasonably.

Although a later s.10(b) breach occurred when an officer spoke with the accused after he requested counsel, the Crown did not seek to rely on the resulting statements.

At trial, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cocaine was possessed for the purpose of trafficking and instead convicted the accused of simple possession.

In a criminal prosecution for kidnapping, extortion, and assault, the court conducted a blended voir dire regarding the admissibility of statements made by the accused to police following a 911 call and police entry into a residence where a bound complainant was discovered.

The accused argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of Charter rights, particularly the right to counsel under s. 10(b).

The court found that one police officer violated the accused’s right to counsel during investigative detention but declined to exclude certain statements after applying the s. 24(2) framework from Grant.

Spontaneous utterances and statements made after proper cautions and waiver of counsel were admitted, while statements allegedly made to another officer in the police cruiser were excluded because the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable notes and evidentiary inconsistencies.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana, possession of proceeds of crime, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The accused brought an application to exclude evidence on the basis of alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the initial investigative detention was lawful, the search of the vehicle was a proper search incident to arrest, and the asking of the accused's name did not constitute a breach.

However, the court found a breach of section 10(b) when police failed to facilitate the accused's right to counsel for approximately one hour after securing the apartment.

Applying the section 24(2) test from R. v. Grant, the court admitted the evidence, finding that while the breach was significant, its impact was minimal and society's interest in adjudication on the merits was strong.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana over 30 grams, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police officers stopped and detained the accused in an alley near Queen Street West and Tecumseh Avenue in Toronto based on suspicions arising from observing two individuals in an alcove.

During a pat-down search, officers discovered 86.75 grams of marijuana.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the detention was unlawful, the search was unlawful, and there was a breach of the right to counsel.

Applying the R v. Grant test, the court excluded the evidence and dismissed all charges.

The accused was charged with weapons offences related to possession of an illegal handgun.

He brought an application to exclude the gun from evidence, alleging that police conduct violated his Charter rights.

The officer stopped the accused based on suspicion that he might be one of two Fountain brothers, one of whom might be wanted.

After clarifying the accused's identity and confirming no warrants existed, the officer continued to detain the accused to complete a field investigative report (FIR card).

When a third party suddenly interjected, the accused's demeanor changed and he adopted a blading stance.

The officer, concerned for safety, conducted a pat-down search and discovered the gun.

The court found an unlawful detention during the FIR process but held that the pat-down search was lawful as it was conducted in response to exigent circumstances triggered by the accused's sudden threatening posture.

The gun was admitted into evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Following a traffic stop, police discovered marijuana in a pouch and a loaded handgun on the accused during a search incident to arrest.

The accused argued that the initial detention, questioning, and search violated his Charter rights and sought exclusion of the evidence.

The court held that the traffic stop and extended detention were lawful and that the search of the pouch and subsequent arrest were valid.

Although the court found that police improperly asked about drugs without grounds during the traffic stop, no evidence flowed from that breach.

The firearm and drug evidence were therefore admissible, resulting in multiple convictions for firearm offences and simple possession of marijuana.

The accused were charged with possession of ketamine for the purpose of trafficking after police stopped their vehicle, detained them, conducted a perimeter search of a residence, and entered the house where a drug laboratory was discovered.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of all evidence under s. 24(2), alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the investigative detention was arbitrary because officers lacked reasonable suspicion, and that the accused were not promptly informed of the reasons for detention or their right to counsel.

The court also held that the warrantless perimeter search and entry into the residence were unlawful and that the seizure of identification constituted an unreasonable seizure.

Given the seriousness and multiplicity of Charter breaches, including misleading testimony and investigative conduct based on a mere hunch, the court excluded the accused’s roadside statements, identification evidence, and the drug laboratory evidence.

The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude drugs discovered during a search following his arrest for possession of marijuana.

Police approached a vehicle after observing the accused leave an after‑hours club and arrested him after the passenger was found with marijuana.

The court held that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused and that the arrest was based on speculation that he knew about the passenger’s marijuana.

The resulting search and detention violated ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, and the court rejected the Crown’s argument that the interaction constituted a lawful investigative detention.

Applying the framework in Grant, the court concluded the police conduct demonstrated a deliberate disregard for Charter rights and excluded the seized drugs.