The applicant, Ramone Campbell, sought to exclude evidence in his trial for robbery and sexual assault, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that police violated the applicant's reasonable expectation of privacy by obtaining cellphone subscriber information and pinging data without judicial authorization or exigent circumstances, and further violated his right to counsel by delaying the advisement and questioning him before he had the opportunity to consult counsel.

These violations led to an invalid search warrant for his room.

Applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the serious and deliberate nature of the police misconduct, coupled with the significant impact on the applicant's privacy and right to counsel, outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

Consequently, the court granted the application, excluding clothing, a cellphone, and an imitation firearm found in the applicant's room.

The appellant was pulled over in a traffic stop and subjected to an investigative detention and sniffer dog search that breached his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Following the sniffer dog's positive indication, police arrested the appellant and searched his vehicle, seizing over 100 pounds of cannabis and cash.

The trial judge found initial Charter breaches but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

On appeal to the SCC, the majority held that the subsequent arrests and searches were consequential Charter breaches but that, absent additional or independent state misconduct, consequential breaches are unlikely to significantly increase the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct, and the Grant factors on balance favoured admission.

The appeal was dismissed, with Martin and Kasirer JJ. dissenting on the ground that the cumulative seriousness of all breaches and their substantial impact on the appellant's protected interests warranted exclusion.

This decision addresses a voir dire in a criminal trial concerning the admissibility of self-incriminating statements and breath test results in an impaired driving case.

The defence argued Charter violations (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) and that the accused lacked an operating mind.

The court found initial breaches of the accused's s.10(a) and (b) Charter rights during investigative detention due to police failure to promptly inform him of the reasons for detention and right to counsel.

However, it ruled that subsequent spontaneous statements made after the detention ended, and further statements and breath samples obtained at the police station, were admissible.

The court applied the R. v. Grant framework, concluding that the spontaneous statements were not causally connected to the initial breach and that the accused possessed an operating mind despite intoxication, as evidenced by his coherent responses and understanding of cautions.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marihuana, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The evidence was obtained via a search warrant that contained an incorrect address, rendering it invalid.

The trial judge admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding the breach minor due to good faith and no risk of entering the wrong house.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in minimizing the seriousness of the Charter breach but ultimately upheld the admission of the evidence based on a holistic application of the R. v. Grant factors.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's appeal of the three-and-a-half-year sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's sentencing approach.

The Crown appealed a Court of Appeal decision that had excluded a murder confession and ordered a new trial after finding multiple Charter breaches.

Police executed a search warrant at the respondent's home, transported him to the police station and interviewed him for over three hours without advising him of his right to counsel.

Three weeks later, after arrest and a brief Legal Aid consultation, the respondent asked mid-interview to call his father to obtain legal counsel; police refused and he subsequently confessed.

The majority held the respondent was psychologically detained on the day of the warrant execution contrary to s. 10(b), and that police committed a further s. 10(b) breach by refusing a second consultation when there was objective reason to question whether the initial Legal Aid advice had been understood.

The majority further held that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) given the seriousness of the breaches and their significant impact on the respondent's Charter-protected interests, particularly in light of his youth, Indigenous background, and minimal prior exposure to the police.

The accused, Mr. Breton, brought an application to exclude evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, following previous findings of serious section 8 Charter violations by the police.

The court applied the three-part test from R. v. Grant, assessing the seriousness of state conduct, the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court found the police conduct to be serious and deliberate, including disingenuous warrant applications, warrantless searches of outbuildings, and oppressive personal searches.

The impact on the accused's privacy and dignity was deemed significant.

While the evidence was reliable and critical to the Crown's case, the court concluded that the strong pull for exclusion from the first two Grant factors outweighed society's interest in admission.

Consequently, all evidence obtained after 9:00 a.m. on December 1, 2009, including property seized under three warrants and derivative evidence, was excluded from the trial.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault and assault with a weapon against his intimate partner, stemming from incidents on November 25, 2018, and June 19, 2019.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, corroborated by medical records and photographs, accepting her explanations for prior inconsistent statements due to the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused's self-defence claim for the November 25, 2018 incident was rejected as his use of force was disproportionate and unreasonable, particularly given the history of abuse.

The accused was found guilty of assault and assault with a weapon for the June 19, 2019 incident, and guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm for the November 25, 2018 incident.

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.