In Buhay, Arbour J. considered the three step inquiry set out in Collins, supra, as to when evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. The three categories are (1) trial fairness (2) the seriousness of the police conduct, and (3) the effects of excluding the evidence on the administration of justice. At paragraph 50 of her reasons, Arbour J. stated the following: "The evidence obtained in violation of the Charter which does not emanate from the accused but rather existed independently of the violation is classified as non-conscriptive evidence. Its admission will not affect adjudicative fairness, but the second and third sets of factors may militate towards its exclusion: Stillman, supra; R v. Evans 1996 CanLII 248 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8."
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.