Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses officers acting in good faith.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
Andrea Molnar was convicted at trial of possessing marijuana for the purposes of trafficking. She appealed her conviction, arguing that the trial judge had not properly found a Charter breach in her case. While the Court of Appeal agreed that there was a Charter breach, the Court of Appeal engaged in its own analysis of whether or not the evidence should be admitted under section 24.2 of the Charter determining that the officers were acting in good faith, and therefore the evidence was better off to be admitted rather than excluded.
Ms. Molnar appealed and sought leave to the Supreme Court of Canada which was not granted. She argued in her leave application that the Court of Appeal erred effectively by engaging in its own analysis of the effects of 24.2 without the benefit of findings from the trial judge.
This is an interesting case because now since the SCC rewrote the test, and it involved more weighing of the evidence, things like good or bad faith become very important in the determination of whether or not should be admitted.
Watch the video for more.
