This is not as clear a case for the appellant as existed, for example, in Feeney v. The Queen (1997), 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), 115 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (S.C.C.) at 145-7. I am unable to say the trial judge’s conclusion of the existence of subjectively held reasonable grounds is unreasonable. Even if such grounds did not exist, this would not in all the circumstances have been an appropriate case for s.24(2) Charter exclusion of evidence. The Reasons for Judgment (a) The Inadmissible Statements of the Appellant
"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.