Ms. S. Repka

This decision concerns a s. 24(2) Charter application to exclude evidence (a firearm) obtained following an invalid search warrant and unconstitutional police entry.

The court applied the three-factor test from R. v. Grant, finding the police conduct (gross negligence in preparing the Information to Obtain, misleading statements, lack of investigation, and warrantless entry) to be extremely serious.

While the impact on the accused's privacy interest was moderate (as he was not a resident), the seriousness of the police misconduct outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore excluded the firearm against all accused.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol readings exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood.

The defendant brought a Charter application challenging whether the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest him for impaired driving and to demand breath samples.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended voir dire.

The court found that the officer had both subjective and objective reasonable grounds for the arrest based on a constellation of factors including a 911 report of an impaired driver, detailed vehicle description, dispatch information about swerving, observations of unsteadiness, admission of recent alcohol consumption, strong odour of alcohol on breath, and slightly slurred speech.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the officer should have conducted further investigative steps before making the arrest.

The defendant's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 were not violated.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.