Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights - Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility - Search and seizure - Right to counsel - Right to be informed of reasons for arrest - Right to silence - Remedy - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8, 10(a), 10(b) - Application of R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, and R. v. Harrison, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494 - Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that its intervention was warranted - Whether Court of Appeal erred in applying new test established by Grant - Whether Court of Appeal erred in interfering with trial judge’s findings - Whether Court of Appeal erred in setting aside trial judgment and ordering new trial while upholding exclusion of Appellant’s statements - Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding search warrant and general search warrant valid.

The Appellant was charged with the second degree murder of her spouse. During a voir dire, the trial judge concluded that several of her constitutional rights had been violated, namely her right to be informed of the reasons for her arrest (s. 10(a) of the Charter), her right to counsel (s. 10(b) of the Charter), her right to be secure against unreasonable search (s. 8 of the Charter) and her right to remain silent (s. 7 of the Charter). The trial judge also concluded that the violations were so serious that he had no choice but to reject the evidence obtained by the police at the time of the searches. As a result, the Appellant was acquitted. On appeal, the Crown basically admitted the violations alleged by the Appellant and the seriousness of those violations and conceded that the videotaped statements had to be excluded. Therefore, the only issue was the admissibility of the physical evidence gathered in the residence of the Appellant and the victim. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the ground that excluding the physical evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, since it was obvious that the evidence had been discovered without the Appellant’s participation, since the crime with which she was charged was a serious one and since the police had not deliberately acted improperly.