A. Nisker

The applicant sought exclusion of drugs seized during a traffic stop involving an unplated vehicle driven while under suspension.

The court held the applicant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle itself, given the absence of plates, lack of proof of ownership or consent, and suspended licence status, but did retain a privacy interest in a box and camera bag found inside the vehicle.

Applying the s. 8 standing analysis, search reasonableness principles, and the law of search incident to arrest, the court found the glovebox search was lawful for ownership documentation, the container search was reasonable in the circumstances, and the later camera bag search was lawful incident to arrest.

In the alternative, any hypothetical Charter breaches would not justify exclusion under s. 24(2).

The application was dismissed and the evidence ruled admissible at trial.

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

The police arrested the accused and searched his vehicle without a warrant, finding keys that opened an apartment where drugs and money were located.

The Crown conceded a s. 9 Charter breach for the arrest and a defective search warrant for the apartment.

The court conducted a Grant analysis and found that the police conduct in drafting the Information to Obtain (ITO) was significantly careless and misleading.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.