3 total
Warrantless search of apartment based on general police policy violated Charter; marijuana evidence excluded.
The applicants, charged with unlawful production of marijuana, brought a pre-trial application alleging breaches of their ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights following a warrantless police search of their apartment.
Police had responded to a report of a domestic disturbance and, despite the applicants' explanations and lack of apparent distress, entered and searched the apartment based on a general police policy, discovering a small marijuana grow operation.
The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds to believe anyone else was in the apartment requiring assistance, rendering the search unreasonable and the detention arbitrary.
Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
Rowbotham order granted where legal aid refusal resulted from misleading notices.
The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking a stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided.
The accused had been refused legal aid after failing to execute a contribution agreement assigning confiscated funds, but evidence showed the refusal resulted from confusing and misleading notices issued by the legal aid plan.
The court found the accused was indigent, unable to retain counsel privately, and faced serious drug charges with potential incarceration and complex Charter issues.
Given the likelihood that self-representation would compromise trial fairness, the court held that state funding was required.
The proceedings were conditionally stayed to allow the Attorney General of Canada to arrange funding for counsel covering pre‑trial proceedings and trial.
Crown need not call evidence of police organization to explain breathalyzer delay if other evidence suffices.
The accused was involved in a single vehicle accident.
The police arrived approximately one hour after the accident was reported and took breath samples.
The trial judge convicted the accused of driving 'over 80', but the summary conviction appeal judge quashed the conviction, holding that the Crown failed to explain the delay by not calling evidence of police organization.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that evidence of police organization is not strictly required if other evidence, such as the arresting officer's testimony that it was a busy night, sufficiently explains the delay.
A new trial was ordered.
