5 total
Evidence of marijuana found during unauthorized strip search of inmate excluded due to s. 8 Charter breach.
The accused, an inmate at a detention centre, was charged with possessing marijuana after a correctional officer found the drug during a strip search.
The officer conducted the search without the superintendent's authorization, based only on a hunch after seeing another inmate blocking the cell door.
The court found the search violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and the search was not authorized by law.
Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), emphasizing the seriousness of the unauthorized strip search and the need to uphold legislated safeguards for inmates.
The accused was found not guilty.
Evidence of marijuana found during an unauthorized strip search in a detention centre was excluded, resulting in an acquittal.
The accused was charged with possessing 2 grams of marijuana contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, allegedly discovered during a strip search at a detention centre.
The accused challenged the legality of the search under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sought exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2).
The court found that the strip search was unauthorized and based on insufficient grounds, constituting a serious breach of the accused's Charter rights.
The evidence was excluded, resulting in an acquittal.
Related employer declaration granted for electrical contractors under common control; low-rise residential agreement not applied.
The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents constituted one employer and were bound by certain collective agreements.
The Board found that the initial voluntary recognition agreement was valid and not the result of improper employer support.
Applying the criteria for a related employer declaration, the Board concluded that the entities were under common control and direction and engaged in related business activities in the electrical contracting industry.
The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, binding the respondents to the Electricians Provincial Agreement and the high-rise residential appendix, but declined to bind them to the low-rise residential agreement as the union lacked bargaining rights for that work.
Union certified; employee petition opposing certification given no weight due to lack of evidence on origination.
The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.
A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification.
The Board found that the objecting employees, who were unrepresented, failed to adduce first-hand evidence regarding the origination and circulation of the petition, and failed to account for its custody.
Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition.
As the union demonstrated membership support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.
A non-construction trade union may apply to certify construction industry employees under general Act provisions.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, an employer engaged in the fabrication and erection of structural steel.
The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that because it operates in the construction industry, only a trade union pertaining to the construction industry under section 117(f) of the Labour Relations Act could apply.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the respondent and its employees fall within the construction industry provisions, section 144(5) and the general provisions of the Act permit a non-construction trade union to apply for certification outside the province-wide bargaining scheme.
