The accused brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence, including an imitation firearm and a construction vest, arguing his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter were violated during his arrest for a home invasion.
The court found the detention and searches were lawful, but the police breached the implementational component of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel by unreasonably delaying his access to a lawyer due to an internal policy.
Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that despite the serious s. 10(b) breach, the evidence should not be excluded because the impact on the accused's protected interests was minimal and society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits favoured admission.