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
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
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