Contract Law

The respondent is unable to justify the violations of Section 8 and 10 of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms (charter) with regards to section 24 (2) of the charter. Section 24 (2) states that where in proceedings under section (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that did not infringe or deny any rights of freedoms guaranteed by the charter, the evidence shall not be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute (charter).
If the court finds that a Charter breach has occurred, the evidence should not be excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.
The test set out in R v. Grant
favours submission of the evidence found in the purse of Ms. Alomar. The test is a three-factor test in determining whether to exclude evidence as pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter. According to the test set out in Grant, the court 15 Her Majesty the Queen v Roberta Alomar and George Bell Appelent’s Factum must assess and balance the effect of admitting the evidence on society’s confidence in the justice system having regard to:
Seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct,
Impact on the Charter-protected interests of the accused, and
Society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits
R.
v. Grant, [2009] 2 SCR 353, 2009 SCC 32
The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11
Two of the three factors in Grant support the movement of not excluding the evidence obtained through the officers in the search of Ms. Alomar. Firstly, the impact on the Charter-protected interest of the accused was not serious. Secondly, society is very interested in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

The impact on the Charter-protected interest of the
accused

The accused, Ms. Alomar, was not severely affected by the state conduct. When the vehicle was stopped, it was under reasonable grounds since the officers had been watching frequent activity happening in and out of the car, which resembled other cases of drug trafficking cases they may have worked with. Ms. Alomar had informed the officers that Mr. Bell was her cousin and had picked him up from school.
However, Det.
Martin noted that Mr. Bell was nearly 20 years old and could not be a student at this age. After this, the officers asked Mr. Bell and Ms. Alomar to step out of the car in order to perform a pat-down search of Mr. Bell and Ms. Alomar.
When being asked to step out of the car, Ms. Alomar brought her large purse with her, which raised suspicion to Det. Colabello. Therefore, she pulled Ms. Alomar’s purse open to make sure there was no weapons inside with a quick glance. While doing so she noted the smell of marijuana and saw a Ziploc bag with smaller bags inside of it. This gave Det. Colabello solid ground to be suspicious of Ms.Alomar to be possessing illegal drugs.
In a case (insert case about cell phone get from Ashvin). Assuming that today’s youth are active users of social media, Det. Colabello thought it would be just to search through Ms. Alomar’s phone to see if she had any images to further support the investigation on Mr. Bell and Ms. Alomar. There was no invasion of privacy that resulted in Ms.Alomar to feel uncomfortable when being searched. Also, Ms. Alomar did not protest when her phone was taken by Det. Colabello, nor did she protest when it was being searched. This search resulted in the evidence of Ms. Alomar’s unauthorized possession of a loaded
firearm.

2. Society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits

Society is very interested in the adjudication of the case on its merits. The evidence that the officers obtained from Ms. Alomar’s purse is very credible that Ms. Alomar possessed, accessed, and distributed marijuana. Also, the evidence in Ms. Alomar’s phone is very credible that Ms. Alomar possessed, and accessed an unauthorized weapon. If the accused are not convicted it will send a message to drug traffickers everywhere that this conduct is fine and that will cause drug trafficking near schools to be fine, putting many students at risk of drug addiction and underage drug consumption.
Section 10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) structures principles of sentencing in relation to drug offences. In Section 10 (2)(a)(iv) it states specifically that trafficking drugs to a minor can be an aggravating factor. Therefore, trafficking marijuana close to a school where minors are able to access it should be taken into serious account and the accused should be charged under Section 10 of the CDSA.