Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In R. v. TELUS Communications Co., the Supreme Court of Canada found that the reasonable expectation of privacy protected by Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to modern communications technologies such as text messages, even if the data in question is located on a third-party server. [8]
R v Feeney, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right, under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against unreasonable search and seizure. The Court held that the police are not permitted to enter into someone's house without a search warrant.
Section 8 search and seizure Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357, 2004 SCC 65 October 28, 2004 Equality rights and comparator groups Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v Newfoundland and Labrador Assn of Public and Private Employees [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381, 2004 SCC 66 October 28, 2004
Section 26 clarifies that other rights and freedoms in Canada are not invalidated by the Charter. Section 27 requires the Charter to be interpreted in a multicultural context. Section 28 states all Charter rights are guaranteed equally to men and women. Section 29 confirms the rights of separate schools are preserved. Section 30
In this case, Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) was found "to protect individuals from unjustified state intrusions upon their privacy" and the court stated such Charter rights should be interpreted broadly. [5]
First, section 8 guarantees everyone has the right to be secure against "unreasonable search and seizure". Second, section 10(b) states that "everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right". According to the defence, both sections had been violated.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
R v AM, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 569, 2008 SCC 19, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure.The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search (to use dogs to conduct random searches) of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute.