V. Clifford

The defendant brought a motion under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from a one-party consent wiretap authorization that was previously found to violate s. 8.

The court first determined that viva voce evidence of the conversation between the police agent and the defendant was inextricably linked to the recording and must be considered in the s. 24(2) analysis.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the breach was not at the higher end of the continuum, the defendant's expectation of privacy in a public restaurant was low, and the evidence was highly reliable.

The court concluded that excluding the evidence would undermine the truth-seeking function and bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore admitted the evidence.

The defendant brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence obtained through a series of wiretap authorizations, arguing the initial Information to Obtain (ITO) was inadequate and misleading.

The court reviewed the ITO, noting material omissions regarding the police agent's criminal record and financial compensation agreement.

After editing and amplifying the ITO, the court found that while there were reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been or would be committed, there were no reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the offences would be obtained through the interception sought.

The initial authorization was set aside, rendering the evidence obtained a presumptive violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

A police sergeant was charged with sexual assault for conducting a strip search of a detainee in police custody.

The detainee, arrested for public intoxication, became violent and assaultive during a pat-down search, kicking and injuring a female cellblock attendant.

The sergeant subsequently cut off the detainee's shirt and bra using safety scissors while she was restrained on the floor.

The Crown alleged the strip search was retaliatory and conducted without lawful authority.

The defence argued the search was justified by exigent circumstances and conducted for valid law enforcement purposes.

The court found the search was justified under section 25 of the Criminal Code based on the constellation of exigent circumstances, including the detainee's violent and assaultive behaviour, the need to complete the search for weapons and contraband, and the practical impossibility of waiting for another female officer.

The charge was dismissed.