Factum

The Court File No.: 234567891

Superior Court of Justice

(Ontario)

BETWEEN:

R.

Plaintiff

v.

ROB ROBERTS

Defendant

FACTUM OF THE PLAINTIFF

PART I вЂ" THE FACTS

1. Rob Roberts was recently charged with a narcotics offence. Police Constables Smith and Weston received an anonymous tip that Mr. Roberts was a drug distributor. The officers had never heard of Mr. Roberts, nor had they ever suspected him to be involved in narcotics.

2. Constables Smith and Weston decided to look up Mr. Roberts’ address and search his property. At 10:00pm on 15 October, 2007 Constables Smith and Weston attended Mr. Roberts’ house, located in the Erb Street area of the City of Waterloo.

3. The officers did not obtain a search warrant. In fact, further evidence will demonstrate that they would have failed to obtain one in any event. In spite of this, they made the decision to search Mr. Roberts’ property anyway.

4. A neighbour will testify that at approximately 9:57pm, she heard an argument break out between the officers in which Smith told Weston “You know, we don’t have a search warrant. We will violate the Charter if we search Roberts’ property.” In response, Weston said “Charter be damned! I want to nail this guy! I don’t care if we don’t have a warrant and we would be breaching the Charter. We’re doing this anyway.”

5. After pounding on Roberts’ door and receiving no answer, the officers walked around to the back yard. There was a locked shed located in the corner of the yard. Weston took an axe from his cruiser and hacked out a section of the shed’s wall.

6. Inside the shed, the officers found twenty vials of Ecstasy and ten ounces of cocaine on the workbench. The Crown has argued that the search was conducted in accordance with section 10 of the Narcotics Control Act.

7. Moreover, Mr. Justice A. Sleep held in an earlier decision that Section 10 of the Narcotics Control Act merely required the officers to hold the suspicion that there were drugs in the shed and that the facts of this case suggested that the police held this suspicion. It is important to note that the officers had no prior knowledge of Mr. Roberts and had no compelling motivation to believe that he was involved in narcotics.

8. In the aftermath of their [aggressive] search, the peace officers [patiently] waited for Roberts to arrive home. At 10:30pm, Roberts arrived home and was immediately arrested for the possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.

9. The police have no other evidence to substantiate the charge apart from the narcotics seized from Roberts’ shed. The narcotic evidence is necessary for conviction. If excluded, the Mr. Roberts will be acquitted.

PART II вЂ" THE LAW

10. Where the Court has determined that the defendants’ right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter has been violated, the trial evidence shall be excluded pursuant to section 24 (2).

Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

11. It is respectfully submitted that section 8 of the Charter protects everyone in Canada from unreasonable search and seizure.

Section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

12. It is respectfully submitted that on a motion for excluding evidence, the Court is under an obligation to determine whether or not the admission of evidence would [create an unfair trail and therefore] bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

R v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 paragraph 19

R v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607, page 11

13. It is respectfully submitted that section 24 (2) provides remedies for the exclusion of trial evidence if the Charter rights of the accused have been violated. There are three prerequisites pertaining