Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Section 10(a) requires that a person who is arrested or detained must be told why. [1] In R. v. Latimer (1997), the Supreme Court of Canada considered an argument in which a person, Robert Latimer, was told he was being "detained", but was not told he was being "arrested" and could be charged with the murder of his daughter. The Court found ...
The particular characteristics or circumstances of the individual where relevant, including age; physical stature; minority status; level of sophistication. Where section nine has been invoked the Crown must show that the police were acting under a lawful duty arising from either the common law (per the R. v. Waterfield test) or from a statute ...
The accused person does not have an election and must be tried by a judge of the provincial court without a jury. [3] 3. For all other indictable offences, the accused person can elect whether to be tried by: A provincial court judge; A judge of the superior trial court of the province without a jury or; A judge of the superior court with a jury
R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter.
The court may require that sureties (persons similar to co-signers on a loan) be added to the recognizance. The court has the ability to name specific individuals as sureties. [27] Sureties can apply to the court to be relieved of their obligations. This will usually result in the accused being arrested and held for a new release hearing. [34]
In R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society the Supreme Court of Canada found that an open-ended statute (prohibiting companies from "unduly" lessening competition) was not a breach of Section 11(a). In R. v. Delaronde (1997), the Supreme Court of Canada found section 11 (a) is meant not only to guarantee a fair trial but also to serve as an ...
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]
In Canada v Schmidt (1987), the Supreme Court found that government decisions to extradite people are bound by section 7. Moreover, it is possible that a potential punishment in the receiving country " shocks the conscience " to the extent that the Canadian government would breach fundamental justice if they extradited people there, and thus ...