The impact of the infringements on the appellant’s
Charter-protected rights was not significant. The appellant had
a reduced expectation of privacy in a rented van that was overdue. The delay in providing s. 10(b) advice did not disadvantage
the appellant who did not make any incriminating statements.
Warrants were sought for the van and house and executed in
a reasonable manner.
 The respondent points out that the third line of inquiry
under Grant favours admission of the evidence. This is real evidence: 437 pounds of marijuana and $125,000 in cash. Not to
mention guns and ammunition. It is reliable evidence and essential to the case for the Crown. In its absence, the case for the
Crown is gutted.
The governing principles
 The principles that control this determination are the
three lines of inquiry mandated by Grant to assess and balance
the effect of admitting constitutionally tainted evidence on
society’s confidence in the justice system:
( i) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct;
( ii) the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests
of the accused; and
( iii) society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.
See Grant, at para. 71.
 The first two lines of inquiry work together. Singly and
in combination they pull towards exclusion of constitutionally
tainted evidence. The strength of the claim for exclusion equals
the sum of the first two inquiries. The third and final inquiry
resists this combined influence, pulling in the opposite direction
with especial force when the evidence is reliable and crucial to
the case for the Crown: R. v. McGuffie (2016), 131 O.R. (3d) 643,
 O.J. No. 2504, 2016 ONCA 365, 336 C.C.C. (3d) 486,
at para. 62; R. v. Harrison (2009), 97 O.R. (3d) 560, 
2 S.C.R. 494,  S.C.J. No. 34, 2009 SCC 34, at paras. 33-34.
 Where the first two lines of inquiry under Grant advance
a strong case for exclusion, the third line of inquiry will rarely, if
ever, tip the balance in favour of admissibility. On the other
hand, where the first two lines of inquiry offer weaker support
for exclusion, the third line of inquiry will almost certainly confirm the admissibility of the evidence: McGuffie, at para. 63;
Grant, at para. 140. See, also, R. v. Côté,  3 S.C.R. 215,
 S.C.J. No. 46, 2011 SCC 46, at paras. 81-89.