2 total
Evidence excluded under s. 24(2) after police failed to accommodate deaf accused's right to counsel.
The accused, who is deaf, brought a Charter application to exclude firearms and drugs seized from his residence during the execution of a search warrant.
He argued the warrant was based on stale information and that police breached his s. 10(b) right to counsel by failing to accommodate his hearing impairment.
The court found the search warrant was validly issued.
However, the court found a s. 10(b) breach because police failed to provide appropriate technology or assistance to allow the accused to effectively communicate with duty counsel, despite knowing of his disability.
Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) due to the serious, systemic nature of the police failure to accommodate hearing-impaired detainees.
Evidence of a unique combination of ammunition found in the accused's car was admissible to prove identity, but the firearm itself was excluded.
The Crown sought to admit evidence of the accused's other discreditable conduct, specifically the discovery of a handgun and unique ammunition in his car, in a first-degree murder trial where identity was a key issue.
The court applied the framework for admissibility of similar fact evidence, assessing probative value against prejudicial effect.
The court ruled that the evidence of the unique combination of ammunition found in the accused's car was admissible due to its high probative value in establishing identity, outweighing its prejudicial effect.
However, the evidence of the firearm itself was deemed inadmissible due to low probative value and higher prejudicial risk, unless the accused denied association with the ammunition.
