Criminal Law Case Study: Analyzing Charter Rights in Three Cases

This case study analyzes three criminal law cases: R. v. Fearon, R v Wasilewski, and R. v. Hawryluk. The analysis focuses on the application of Section 8 and Section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which relate to the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of Charter rights, respectively. Each case involves the seizure of cell phones and the subsequent use of evidence obtained from them. The study examines the facts of each case, the legal issues, the relevant laws and their interpretation, and the court's decisions. The analysis highlights the importance of lawful search procedures and the impact of Charter violations on the admissibility of evidence. The conclusion summarizes the outcomes of each case and the implications for criminal law practice.

Running head- CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1Criminal Law
1. R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 (CanLII)
Facts
Two men raided a jewellery store and were possessing armed weapons. They told the
owners to load their car with the jewellery. The police could not recover the jewellery as well
as the weapons. Later police secured the vehicle and detained the burglars. They seize their
cell phone without a prop warrant. The messages and the photos were introduced as evidence
in the court. Fearon appealed that detaining the cell phone was a breach of their right to
privacy.
Issues
Was the act of the police in seizing the cellphone lawful?
Law
Section 8 of the Charter: “Every person possesses the right to secure the evidence that is
searched using unreasonable force.”
Analysis
It was observed by the court that an arrest could be considered lawful if such seizure
of cell phones are permitted. It restricts upon the permission to obtain such evidence upon
warrant and reasonable ground. It states that the incidents relating to searches must be
modified when it related to the seizure of cell phones. It was held that the search of the
cellphone did not breach the rights under Section 8 of Charter. Further, Fearon was convicted
for robbery and possession of the firearm.

2Criminal Law
Conclusion
In conclusion, it was held in this case that the evidence of the cell phone was lawful
and did not violate the Sec 8 of the charter and Fieron was convicted for the alleged crime.
2. R v Wasilewski, 2016 SKCA 112 (CanLII)
Facts
A surveillance was set upon Darryl Allon Chartier as it was alleged that she was to buy
marihuana. Upon observation when he reached the residence of supplier Mr Chartier, and Ms
Wasilewski was driving the vehicle. The RCMP stopped the vehicle and arrested both of
them. A zip lock bag was disclosed from which 220 gms of marihuana was obtained. Along
with that, they seized their cell phones. Both were charged for possessing marihuana for
trafficking. During the trial, Ms Wailewaski alleged the officer for privacy rights.
Issue
1. Was the search that was conducted by the officers were on valid grounds?
Law
 Section 24(2) of the Charter: This provision obligates the law execution authorities to
precludes inappropriately acquired proof from being admitted when there is a intrudes
the fair trial.
 Section 8 of the Charter: Every person possesses the right to secure the evidence that
is searched using unreasonable force (Kramer, 2018).
Analysis
The decision given in the R v. Fearson case was followed by the trial judge, and a voir dire
was conducted and found that the second search was not following the arrest. He was not
pleased by the search procedure and stated that it was a violation of Sec 8 of the Charter.

3Criminal Law
Additionally, it was followed that the rule given under Section 24(2) was also not followed as
per the guidelines. In reaching a verdict, the trial judge not satisfied with the reasonable doubt
and accepted that she did not smell it. Moreover, the acquittal was set aside, and a new trial
was ordered.
Conclusion
In conclusion, with the application of the case of R. v. Fearson, it was seen that the
search procedure was not in accordance o the guidelines and further the acquittal was set
aside.
2. R. v. Hawryluk, 2018 ONSC 710 (CanLII)
Facts
Mr Hawryluk had a permit to grow and possess marijuana up to 15 plants and possess
675 gms. Although he was not permitted to indulge in trafficking with such usage. The
Toronto police searched his place and obtained various evidence related to trafficking and
seized his phone. He was charged for trafficking and possessing a shotgun without any
license. It was alleged that the Toronto police violated the rights as per the Charter Section 8
and the evidence should have been excluded under Section 24(2)
Issue
1. Was the collection of the evidence done lawfully?
Law
 Sec- 8 of Charter: Every individual holds the right to protect the proofs that are
searched using arbitrary force.

4Criminal Law
 Section 24(2) of Charter: “This provision compels the law implementation authorities
to precludes inappropriately acquired proof from being admitted when there is a
intrudes the fair trial (Jochelson, Huang & Murchison, 2015).”
Analysis
It was stated by the crown that there was a violation of the rights mentioned under S
8. Furthermore, it stated that to exclude the evidence on the base of S. 24(2). The case of R v.
Fearon was used by the court to guide in regards to the procedure which shall state the
evidence of the cellphone as justified. The court agreed with the plea of the accused as the
procedure for collecting the evidence was not properly followed. Hence the case gave the
orders to exclude the evidence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, in this case, through the application of the case of R v. Fearson, the
court gave the orders to exclude the evidence.

5Criminal Law
Reference
Jochelson, R., Huang, D., & Murchison, M. J. (2015). Empiricizing Exclusionary Remedies
—A Cross Canada Study of Exclusion of Evidence under s. 24 (2) of the Charter,
FiveYears after Grant. Discourse, 57, 1.
Kramer, R. (2018) Section 8 of the Charter and English-Canadian Fiction. The Dalhousie
Review.
R v Wasilewski, 2016 SKCA 112 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gt8st>, retrieved on 2020-
04-10
R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 (CanLII), [2014] 3 SCR 621, <http://canlii.ca/t/gflcd>, retrieved
on 2020-04-10
R. v. Hawryluk, 2018 ONSC 710 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hq3bv>, retrieved on 2020-
04-10