W. Paul Riley

The appeal considered whether the confessions rule applies to accused statements used only on a Charter voir dire, whether police had exigent circumstances under s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a warrantless home entry, and whether seized evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The majority held the confessions rule does not govern this voir dire use, found the warrantless entry violated s. 8 because obtaining a warrant was practicable, and excluded the resulting evidence.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

The appellant challenged a Court of Appeal decision that set aside his acquittals and ordered a new trial in a prosecution involving a telewarrant and Charter search-and-seizure issues.

The central issues were whether the issuing judicial justice's impartiality was compromised and whether the impracticability requirement for a telewarrant was met.

The Court agreed substantially with Justice Frankel's reasons in the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed and the order for a new trial stood.

The Court allowed the appeals and held that former section 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was overbroad under section 7 of the Charter.

It captured humanitarian aid, mutual aid among asylum-seekers, and assistance to family members, which fell outside Parliament’s objective of targeting organized people smuggling.

Attorney General consent to prosecute did not cure the constitutional defect.

The Court read down the former provision to exclude those protected categories and remitted the charges for trial.

The Court dismissed the Crown's appeal and held that restricting lawful medical marihuana possession to dried form unjustifiably violates section 7 of the Charter.

The prohibition was arbitrary because it undermined health and safety by forcing some patients toward riskier or less effective treatment methods.

The remedy declared sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be of no force and effect only to the extent they prohibit authorized persons from possessing cannabis derivatives for medical purposes, without suspension.

This appeal addressed whether a place-search warrant, which did not specifically authorize computer or cellphone searches, permitted police to search digital devices found on site.

The Court held that while the warrant validly authorized a search for occupancy and ownership documents, it did not authorize digital-device searches absent specific prior judicial authorization.

Computers were treated as raising distinct and heightened privacy concerns under section 8, requiring targeted authorization before data searches.

Despite the breach, the Court admitted the challenged evidence under section 24(2), citing the then-uncertain legal landscape, otherwise reasonable police conduct, and strong societal interest in adjudicating serious drug charges on their merits.

The appeal was dismissed and the new-trial order upheld.

The Court held that issue estoppel in a prior jury matter applies only when a finding in favour of the accused was logically necessary to the acquittal.

Because the acquittals on criminal organization counts could be explained by more than one route, including failure to prove association elements, the Crown was not barred from litigating whether the Hells Angels was a criminal organization in later proceedings.