Law360 Canada ( March 23, 2026, 9:43 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from his conviction for possession of a loaded restricted firearm. Police responded to a complaint about an idling car. When the driver opened the door, a cloud of cannabis smoke escaped, and open packages of cannabis were visible at her feet. Relying on s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act (CCA), police told both occupants they would be searched. Before physically searching the appellant, police demanded his name and date of birth, with the appellant stating his identification was in his house across the street. An officer required him to provide his identifying information, ran a database check that revealed an outstanding robbery charge, and shortly thereafter searched the appellant’s satchel, finding a loaded Glock with the serial number removed. At trial, the appellant sought exclusion of the firearm. The judge found a brief breach of s. 9 and a s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) when police asked, “What are you doing with a gun?”, before advising of the right to counsel. He rejected the s. 8 Charter claim, finding the request for identification and database check reasonable and not a ruse, and found no breach of s. 10(a) of the Charter. He concluded that exclusion was unwarranted. On appeal, the appellant argued the judge erred in concluding the seizure and use of his identifying information did not breach s. 8 of the Charter, in finding his s. 10(b) of the Charter right was suspended during the CCA investigation, and in failing to consider misleading police evidence and cumulative prejudice. The Crown conceded that the judge’s analysis on this point was wrong, requiring a fresh s. 24(2) of the Charter analysis....