The applicant was charged with possession of a prohibited firearm.
During the execution of a telewarrant at his family's residence, the applicant was ordered out of the house, handcuffed, and detained by police for over 20 minutes without being informed of the reasons for his detention or his right to counsel.
The police subsequently questioned him in a police cruiser and later at the police station.
The applicant brought a pre-trial motion arguing that his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter were violated, and that his statements were involuntary.
The court found that the telewarrant was invalid and lacked reasonable grounds, resulting in a s. 8 breach.
The court also found that the applicant was arbitrarily detained in breach of s. 9, and that his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) rights were violated.
Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of the statements due to an incomplete record of police interactions.
Applying s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded both the physical evidence and the statements.
