strip search

The applicant was charged with aggravated assault, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a licence, possession of a firearm while prohibited, possession of a prohibited device, and possession of cocaine and crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging that correctional officers at Toronto South Detention Centre breached his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter by subjecting him to degrading strip search and forced toilet procedures.

The court found Charter breaches but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, finding alternative remedies adequate.

On the trial proper, the applicant was found guilty of all charges, including aggravated assault, based on DNA evidence linking his knife to the victim's blood and circumstantial evidence establishing his presence and motive.

The accused, Kenneth Hill, brought an application to stay proceedings or exclude evidence, alleging multiple Charter breaches by police during his arrest and detention for random assaults.

The court found a violation of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel, specifically regarding the police's premature interruption of his call to duty counsel and failure to ensure he received legal advice, particularly given his apparent mental health issues.

However, the court found no violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search, including strip search and state of undress) or s. 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest).

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the s. 10(b) breach was at the low end of the spectrum in terms of impact on the accused's Charter interests, and that admitting the evidence (identification photos/videos taken prior to the breach) would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application for a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence was dismissed.

Antony Black was charged with drug-related offenses, obstruction, and probation breach.

He sought to exclude drug evidence obtained via a strip search, alleging Charter violations (ss. 7, 8, 10(b), 12) during his arrest and search.

The court found a s. 10(b) violation for delayed right to counsel and a s. 8 violation for an unlawful vehicle search.

However, it determined there was no sufficient causal, contextual, or temporal connection between these violations and the drug evidence from the strip search to engage s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Even if engaged, the violations were minor or remedied by the Crown not relying on the vehicle search evidence.

The strip search itself was found to be lawful and conducted reasonably despite the use of force due to the accused's resistance.

Consequently, the drug evidence was admissible, and the accused was found guilty of all charges.

The accused was charged with three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking after surrendering drugs during a police parade following her arrest for a firearms offence.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended voir dire.

The court found that while the arrest was lawful, the police flagrantly violated the accused's Charter rights by failing to implement her right to counsel without delay for approximately four hours and by conducting an unjustified strip search without reasonable grounds specific to the accused's circumstances.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these violations and entered acquittals on all counts.

The appellant was arrested on a surety warrant that had been rescinded by an administrative judge over a month prior to the arrest, but the rescission was not recorded on CPIC.

A pat-down search incident to arrest and a subsequent strip search yielded cocaine and marijuana.

The trial judge found the arrest lawful and the searches reasonable.

On appeal, the court found the arrest was unlawful because: (1) the surety warrant had been validly rescinded by the administrative judge; (2) the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest; and (3) the police failed to make reasonable inquiries when the appellant informed them the warrant had been dealt with in court.

The court also found the strip search violated section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) and verdicts of acquittal were substituted.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and "Over 80" following a police investigation on September 5, 2016.

The defendant applied for Charter relief alleging multiple breaches.

The court found breaches of section 10(b) of the Charter (right to counsel), arbitrary detention due to misapplication of reverse onus provisions, strip searches as a consequence of arbitrary detention, and non-consensual medical injection at a correctional facility.

The court granted a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter, finding that the cumulative effect of these breaches was so serious that proceeding with the trial would harm the integrity of the justice system.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought a Charter s. 8 application to exclude evidence obtained during a strip search, alleging excessive force and improper conduct.

The court found that while the applicant was briefly completely undressed, a minor deviation from *Golden* guidelines, the force used was the minimum necessary given the applicant's non-compliance and safety concerns.

The application was dismissed as no Charter infringement was found.

The defendant was arrested based on the odour of burnt marijuana detected by police during a traffic stop.

Following the arrest, police conducted a strip search at the roadside without proper grounds or informational requirements, and delayed informing the defendant of his right to counsel for approximately 50 minutes.

The defendant was charged with possession of controlled drugs for trafficking, assault with intent to resist arrest, administering a noxious substance, and failing to comply with probation.

The court found multiple Charter violations including an unlawful arrest, unreasonable delay in providing s. 10(b) rights, and an improperly conducted strip search.

All evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 after being found unconscious in her motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

Following arrest and booking, she was subjected to a strip search (level 3 search) after a small amount of marijuana was discovered in her purse.

The accused challenged the strip search as a violation of her Charter rights under sections 7 and 8.

The court found that the officer-in-charge lacked reasonable and probable grounds to order the strip search, as he failed to conduct an individualized assessment of the detainee's circumstances as required by law.

The court excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

Appellant appealed her conviction for importing cocaine and her sentence of three years imprisonment.

The Crown's case established all essential elements of importing beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant's sole defence was duress, which the jury rejected.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that seeking assistance from Canadian Border Services Agency officers at the airport constituted a safe avenue of escape, contending that the importing offence was complete upon entry into Canada.

The Court of Appeal held that while importing may be legally complete upon entry, it is not factually complete until the contraband and its carrier clear customs.

Accordingly, assistance from domestic authorities remained available as a potential safe avenue of escape.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

On the sentencing appeal, the appellant sought a six-month reduction due to an unlawful strip search conducted by the RCMP.

While the trial judge erred in her analysis of the Charter breach's seriousness and in treating sentencing ranges as fixed, these errors did not impact the sentence imposed, which was fit.

The appeal from sentence was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a police stop of a van in a residential neighbourhood where break-ins had occurred.

The Court of Appeal found that the initial traffic stop constituted an arbitrary detention in breach of section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the officer had no reasonable grounds to suspect the occupants were involved in the break-ins and no legitimate highway traffic purpose for the stop.

Although the arrest and search incident to arrest were found to be lawful based on the smell of fresh marijuana, and the post-arrest strip search was found to be unlawful, the Court determined that the arbitrary detention tainted all subsequent police conduct.

Applying the section 24(2) analysis, the Court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violations, finding that the seriousness of the police misconduct and its strong negative impact on the appellant's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was charged with Over 80 and Impaired Driving following a traffic stop.

During police custody, the accused was subjected to a strip search requiring removal of her underwire bra without reasonable and probable grounds.

The Crown conceded the breach of section 8 Charter rights.

The court found the strip search was part of a systemic and routine police practice at the detachment applied without exception to all female detainees wearing underwire bras.

The court granted a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, finding that proceeding to trial would manifest, perpetuate, and aggravate the prejudice to the integrity of the justice system.

The court noted that had the 24(1) remedy not been available, it would have excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) and acquitted on the impaired driving charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment beyond the odour of alcohol.

The applicant brought a motion under sections 15 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for impaired driving and over 80 operation charges.

The applicant, who has multiple disabilities including visual impairment (alternating exotropia), ADHD, and significant scarring from chemical burns, alleged that state actors (Crown, court clerks, accessibility coordinator, and police) failed to provide timely and independent disability accommodation, resulting in differential treatment contrary to section 15.

The applicant argued that inadequate accommodation led to his failure to appear on two occasions, resulting in unnecessary strip searches.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the conduct of state actors is subject to Charter scrutiny under Eldridge, the applicant failed to establish a factual foundation for a section 15 breach.

The accused was charged with refusing to comply with a lawful breath demand contrary to the Criminal Code.

Following a citizen complaint of impaired driving, police located the accused in the driver's seat of a vehicle with the engine running.

After failing an Approved Screening Device test, the accused was arrested and taken to the station where he was demanded to provide breath samples on an Approved Instrument.

The accused refused to comply.

The trial addressed multiple Charter issues including care or control, reasonable grounds for the demand, timing of the demand, the validity of the refusal, potential reasonable excuse based on mistrust of police, and alleged breaches of sections 10(a), 10(b), 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The court found the Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected all Charter defences.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine for trafficking, possession of heroin for trafficking, possession of hydromorphone for trafficking, possession of cannabis for trafficking, possession of hashish for trafficking, and possession of hashish oil for trafficking, as well as failing to comply with a probation order.

The Crown conceded counts 1 and 3.

The central issues were whether the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the defendant, whether the strip search was conducted lawfully, and whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under the Charter.

The court found that while the police had reasonable grounds to arrest and the strip search was justified, it was not conducted in a reasonable manner, violating section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence from the strip search was excluded.

The defendant was convicted of the included offences of simple possession of marijuana, hashish, and hashish oil, and failing to comply with probation.

The accused, David Odesho, brought an application under Section 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from a strip search and challenged the admissibility of gunshot residue (GSR) evidence found on his underwear.

The court found that the strip search violated Section 8 because there were insufficient grounds to justify it and it was conducted unreasonably, particularly due to being videotaped in its entirety and not authorized by an independent supervisor.

Applying the Grant factors, the court excluded the underwear and GSR analysis under Section 24(2) of the Charter.

Additionally, the court ruled that the single particle of GSR found on the underwear 48 hours after the shooting lacked logical relevance and was inadmissible as expert evidence under the Mohan test, given the numerous alternate explanations for its presence and its low probative value.

The defendant brought an application to exclude evidence (crack cocaine) found in his condominium, arguing a section 8 Charter breach due to an unlawful strip search conducted at the police station subsequent to his arrest.

The court found a section 8 breach occurred due to the blatant lack of record-keeping regarding the reasons for and the manner in which the strip search was conducted, despite finding reasonable and probable grounds for the search itself and general compliance with most *Golden* guidelines.

However, the court dismissed the application to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding no temporal, contextual, or causal connection between the strip search breach and the evidence, which was obtained hours earlier under a valid search warrant.

The applicant was charged with Care and Control over 80 mg and Impaired Care and Control following observations of her sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle in live traffic on Bayview Avenue.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking to stay proceedings or exclude evidence including breath samples, statements, and observations based on alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest existed, but determined that no valid breath demand was made because the officer making the demand did not receive information regarding the grounds for arrest.

The court excluded the breath samples and readings but declined to stay proceedings.

The applicant's detention at the police division after medical clearance was found to be arbitrary, though the duration was not sufficiently egregious to warrant a stay.

The defendant was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit and possession of marijuana.

The defendant conceded guilt to the marijuana charge and did not challenge evidence supporting the impaired driving charge.

However, he sought a stay of proceedings, alleging he was subjected to an unlawful strip search incident to his arrest.

The Crown argued either that no strip search occurred or that a reduction in sentence was the appropriate remedy.

The court found that a strip search did occur without justification and granted a stay of proceedings on the impaired driving charge, citing a pattern of unlawful strip searches by the police service and the need to defend constitutional protections.

The accused was charged with care or control with excess blood alcohol and impaired care or control following a motor vehicle incident.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence of erratic driving, manifest signs of impairment, and breath analysis results.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging police misconduct including improper handcuffing, an allegedly planted drug baggie, failure to preserve cell video evidence, and an improperly conducted strip search.

The court found that while some police conduct was disrespectful and the Crown breached its disclosure obligation regarding the video, these breaches did not warrant a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of both charges.