THE COURT is the online resource for debate & data about the Supreme Court of Canada.*

Archive For Entries On Harrison (2008)

Severing Ties: Grant‘s New Exclusionary Framework Applied in Harrison

Rewriting the Rules on the Exclusion of Evidence under S. 24(2) In a long-awaited and much-anticipated move, the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 revised the framework for determining whether evidence obtained in breach of the Charter must be excluded under s. 24(2), or else risk bringing the [...]

Friday’s Supreme Court of Canada Judgments: For Civil Libertarians, Like a Breath of Fresh Air

On Friday the Supreme Court of Canada released judgments in four eagerly awaited criminal Charter cases: R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32; R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34; R. v. Shepherd, 2009 SCC 35; and R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33. Although much of the media coverage has focused on the results, ultimately the Court [...]

Competing Roles; or, How Do You Solve a Problem Like the Administration of Justice?

We are coming up on one full year since the Supreme Court heard the appeals for R. v. Grant and R. v. Shepherd, which — along with R. v. Harrison (also awaiting judgment) — represent a holy triptych dealing with the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter. Grant and Shepherd [...]

When is a Charter Breach Justified? R. v. Harrison and the Application of the Exclusionary Rule

Nearly one year ago today, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that the 77 pounds of cocaine found by a police officer in the trunk of Bradley Harrison’s rented Dodge Durango was admissible evidence. The details of the appeal, as well as its preceding trial decision, have been summarized by Tom Schreiter here. Recently, discussion [...]

Inevitable Appeal to SCC in R. v. Harrison

On February 11, 2008, the Court of Appeal for Ontario rendered their decision in R. v. Harrison, 2008 ONCA 85, a criminal case dealing primarily with the treatment of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. In the decision, Associate Chief Justice O’Connor and Justice MacPherson agreed that the critical evidence was properly admitted at trial and consequently dismissed [...]