Ground #5: Admissibility of the search evidence
 The final ground of appeal against conviction requires a
tally of the impact of the Charter infringements on the admissibility of the evidence seized by the police in their searches of the
appellant, the van and the house at [number omitted] Hislop.
 The trial judge found a single breach of the information
component of s. 10(b) when arresting officers failed to advise
the appellant of his right to retain and instruct counsel until
18 minutes after his arrest. In the interim, they had examined
the appellant’s purse and conducted an inventory of the cash
found on him on a search incident to his arrest.
The decision of the trial judge
 The trial judge admitted evidence of all the marijuana,
cash and related paraphernalia found during the searches of the
appellant, the van and the house at [number omitted] Hislop. He
was satisfied that the s. 10(b) breach was neither wilful nor
reckless, albeit moderately serious. The impact on the appellant’s Charter-protected right was non-existent. The evidence
was extremely reliable and fundamentally important to the
proof of the case for the Crown.
The arguments on appeal
 According to the appellant, consideration of the Grant
lines of inquiry should result in exclusion of the evidence of the
results of the searches.
 The appellant says that what occurred here were serious
breaches of several Charter rights protecting various interests.
Arbitrary detention. An unlawful arrest. A breach of the information component of the right to counsel. An unreasonable
strip search. These breaches had a profound impact on a wide
variety of Charter-protected interests. The first two lines of
inquiry under Grant strongly favour exclusion, a conclusion not
displaced by the third.
 The respondent contends that should this court find
reversible error in the trial judge’s Charter ruling, the Grant
analysis favours admissibility.
 The respondent says that the infringements were not
serious and, in any event, attenuated by good faith. What
occurred is not indicative of a systemic or flagrant disregard of
the appellant’s Charter rights. The search of the box in the van
incident to the appellant’s arrest was minimally intrusive. The
delay to await a warrant reflective of good faith.