S. Casey Hill

The appellant was stopped by police during a random routine traffic check without any suspicion of unlawful activity.

He admitted his driver's licence was suspended and was convicted of driving while suspended.

He appealed, arguing the random stop violated his Charter rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the random stop constituted an arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Charter, it was a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under section 1 due to the pressing and substantial concern of highway safety.

The appellants were acquitted at trial on a directed verdict of robbery and using a firearm.

The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in ruling confessions inadmissible based on language comprehension, which goes to weight rather than admissibility.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, substantially agreeing with the reasons of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant, diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, was convicted of non-capital murder.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred in admitting inculpatory statements made to police, contending that statements by an insane person are inadmissible or that the wrong test for voluntariness was applied.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that there is no absolute rule barring statements from insane persons.

The Court found the trial judge properly considered whether the statements were freely and voluntarily made and represented an operating mind.