Accused charged with offences related to a home invasion robbery. Police covertly installed a video camera in the hallway of an apartment building without warrant or consent of the property manager. Issue of whether accused had standing to allege s 8 Charter breach and exclude evidence obtained as a result of the camera.

Held: s 8 violation; evidence excluded under 24(2).

Although claimants did not live in the apartment, they visited the suite multiple times, locking and unlocking the door. One accused spent the night there. “Interests such as ownership and possession remain legitimate factors” in expectation of privacy; however, in light of Jones, 2017 SCC 60 and Marakah, 2017 SCC 59, “the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship and exclusive control over the hallway are relevant but far from determinative”. Accused had reasonable expectation of privacy and search was unreasonable. On 24(2), police played a “too-clever game of partial truths” and conduct did not show a genuine regard for Charter rights, favouring exclusion.

J. Watts et. al. – Defence Counsel