Quoting from the intro: Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms directs courts to exclude unconstitutionally obtained evidence where, having regard to all the circumstances, its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Thus, it effectively changes the common law which would admit all reliable relevant evidence regardless of how it was obtained. The ‘end justifies the means’ philosophy of the common law has been replaced by one that values truth, but not at the expense of the repute of the administration of justice.
The balancing act the courts must perform is further explained at page 25.
But more importantly, why isn't the 'good faith' argument available to defendants? Especially defendants who, to quote another commenter from months ago, have based their actions on research by y'know, watching 'Bones' and NCIS? Mike? Anyone? Bueller?
Quoting Hon. Gerard Mitchell: "Purpose of s. 24(2) The purpose of s. 24(2) is to maintain the rule of law and the values underlying the charter. It is not meant to punish police misconduct or to compensate an accused for violation of his or her rights. The objective of s. 24(2) is systemic. Its focus is long term, prospective and societal. [Emphasis added] The concern is less with the particular case than on the impact over time of admitting evidence obtained by infringing constitutionally protected rights. .. Disrepute by Admission Police conduct violating charter rights already brings disrepute to the justice system. The concern of s. 24(2) is to avoid adding to that disrepute by admitting the fruit of illegal state conduct into evidence. .. The “disrepute” being referred to in s. 24(2) is disrepute in the local community. The administration of justice does not have to be brought into disrepute on a national scale before courts may interfere to protect the integrity of the process within which they operate. Trial judges have to be concerned for the reputation of the administration of justice in the community with which they deal on a daily basis. Thus, a court in a particular case must determine what the long-term impact on the repute of the administration of justice in the community where it operates would be if evidence obtained under similar circumstances was to be regularly admitted. [The police and the courts in the 'States are definitely way past that test, seen from outside the country.]
The threshold for exclusion under s. 24(2) is lower than the “community shock” test advanced by Lamer J. in his dissenting opinion in R. v. Rothman. That is because s. 24 involves consideration of a breach of the supreme law of the land and because the French version, which is equally official, only requires that the evidence “could” bring the administration of justice into disrepute."
52. The merchant or the manufacturer shall not make the validity of a conventional warranty conditional upon the consumer using a product which is identified by brand name, unless at least one of the three following conditions is fulfilled: (a) the product is supplied to him free of charge; (b) the warranted goods will not function properly unless that product is used; (c) the conventional warranty forms the object of a separate contract entered into for valuable consideration. 1978, c. 9, s. 52.
As it has been shown over and over, Keurig DRMed coffee makers work just fine with non-Keurig coffee pods. So...is Keurig supplying pods for free in Québec? Or providing some other 'valuable consideration'?
FTL: "Data show that there is accelerating fragmentation of care of seriously ill Americans at the end-of-life. Dying patients continue to be hospitalized and subjected to ineffective therapies that erode their quality of life and their personal dignity. Doctors' attitudes have hardly changed in the past 23 years despite the passage of the PSDA. Our data show that doctors they have a striking personal preference to forego high-intensity care for themselves at the end-of-life and prefer to die gently and naturally. This study raises questions about why doctors provide care, to their patients, which is very different from what they choose for themselves and also what seriously ill patients want."
I suppose rich people have too much money to think for themselves, eh?
If the expensive (or even cheap) hotel I was staying at is charging anything, I feel insulted, as it demonstrates that they think I'm a fool.
And actually, I would be a fool if I paid (really?) $1K/day for WiFi... Jeepers, for a thousand dollars you could buy a no-contract cell phone, a no-contract/burner SIM card, and use the phone as a WiFi hot-spot. Bonus: you don't have to worry about whether the hotel set up the security well (usually they don't).