Nicolaas Bruyere was driving in his car with a passenger. They had some cocaine in the car. The police stop him. The police thought that another fella, Hyatt, was in the car. The police believed that Hyatt had just been involved in a drug deal at a nearby hotel. Hyatt was not in the car. The trial judge found that the stop was a section 9 violation but admitted the evidence under section 24(2). Bruyere appealed; the Ontario court of appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial: 2012 ONCA 329.New & Notable: Successful, albeit unconstitutional reliance on a "hunch"
Nicolaas Bruyere was driving in his car with a passenger. They had some cocaine in the car. The police stop him. The police thought that another fella, Hyatt, was in the car. The police believed that Hyatt had just been involved in a drug deal at a nearby hotel. Hyatt was not in the car. The trial judge found that the stop was a section 9 violation but admitted the evidence under section 24(2). Bruyere appealed; the Ontario court of appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial: 2012 ONCA 329.