R v Lenhardt – 2019 ONCA 416 (per curiam):

[8] There was very little evidence on this point at trial. The appellant, in his evidence, testified that although the police had finished processing him at around 2:30 a.m., he did not receive access to counsel until about 8:00 a.m. The appellant was not asked any questions about this time period in-chief or in cross-examination. The police officer who was involved in the arrest had testified before the appellant. He was not questioned by the Crown or the defence about the circumstances surrounding the appellant’s access to counsel after he was arrested.
|
|
[11] The appellant had the onus to show that the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2). Assuming there was a breach of s. 10(b), it is clear that there was no causal relationship between that breach and the obtaining of the narcotics by the police. There need not be a causal relationship to establish a case for exclusion under s. 24(2), but the absence of any such connection is a factor weighing against exclusion.

[12] Given the absence of virtually any evidence about the circumstances of the alleged breach, apart from the appellant’s very brief testimony, it is impossible to make an informed assessment about the nature of the police conduct, or the impact of the police conduct on the appellant’s exercise of his s. 10(b) rights. Those are two of the three factors that must be considered in the s. 24(2) analysis. In the absence of any evidence relating to those factors, it cannot be said that the appellant met his onus to demonstrate that the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2). We also note that the appellant did not argue that the s. 10(b) breach, standing alone, would justify exclusion of the evidence.

[13] The appeal is dismissed.