Police entry into his home seriously breached his privacy: Ontario Court of Appeal
Pending the appeal of a man convicted of serious firearm-related offences, the Ontario Court of Appeal approved his interim release on the terms of the proposed release plan, including house arrest with electronic monitoring.
The case was R. v. Brown, 2026 ONCA 654. After police searched the applicant’s residence, he received convictions and a 50-month imprisonment sentence.
The trial judge acknowledged that the search warrant could not have issued and that the police officers’ intrusion into the applicant’s home seriously invaded his personal privacy, breaching his rights under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, according to the judge, excluding the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter would significantly risk undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.
The judge noted that police seized a loaded firearm and that the applicant had been serving a conditional sentence during the search.
Bail application
Until the determination of his appeal, the applicant requested bail under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, 1985. Among other terms, the proposed release plan would require him to live with his mother, one of two sureties. He could leave the residence only in the company of a surety.
Pursuant to the requirements for release on bail pending an appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, the Crown recognized that the appeal was not frivolous and that the applicant would surrender into custody under the release order’s terms.
However, the Crown objected to the interim release application because the public interest required the applicant’s continued detention.
Ontario Court of Appeal orders interim release
The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted the seriousness of the firearms-related offences. Nevertheless, under the plan’s strict terms, the appeal court found no significant public safety concerns arising from the applicant’s release.
Citing R. v. Papasotiriou, 2018 ONCA 719, the appeal court noted that releasing an individual convicted of a serious offence on very stringent conditions, including house arrest and GPS monitoring, would not be turning them loose on society.
The appeal court pointed out that the proposed terms were similar to those imposed for more than two years before the applicant’s conviction.
Merits of appeal
On the merits, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the appeal was clearly not frivolous, regardless of whether it would ultimately succeed.
The appeal court deferred to the trial judge’s determination under s. 24(2) of the Charter. However, the appeal court emphasized the judge’s finding that the search seriously breached the applicant’s Charter rights.
Prior criminal cases at Ontario Court of Appeal
Here are some other criminal law decisions from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
In a criminal case, the appeal court issued a Feb. 27 decision letting the Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervene on the issue of how the availability of facial recognition technology might inform an analysis regarding s. 8 of the Charter.
After the refusal of legal aid coverage, the appeal court made a Sept. 11, 2025, ruling deeming it in the interests of justice to assign counsel to a man who pleaded guilty to possessing ammunition and explosive substances to appeal his lifetime weapons prohibition.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest criminal law news on the main page!
