Legal Project Management Plan & Checklist
Purpose of this Guide: Use this plan when representing an accused person in Canadian criminal proceedings where state actors have infringed the client's constitutional rights during the investigation. It helps defence counsel navigate the process of seeking the exclusion of evidence under Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Jurisdiction: This plan operates under Canadian federal criminal law and applies across provincial and superior criminal courts, including the Ontario Court of Justice, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Alberta Court of Justice, the Alberta Court of King's Bench, and the British Columbia Supreme Court. The forks address: (1) statements obtained in violation of right to counsel (conscriptive statement pathway), (2) physical evidence discovered as a consequence of a statement (derivative physical evidence pathway), and (3) physical evidence found directly during warrantless searches (non-derivative physical evidence pathway).
The Process at a Glance: The process starts with a thorough review of police interactions to determine whether a physical or psychological detention occurred, triggering informational and implementational duties. Counsel audits first-party disclosure under Stinchcombe, requests outstanding records, and evaluates whether third-party records are required. If a Charter breach is identified, counsel drafts the Notice of Application and the Notice of Constitutional Question, serving the Attorneys General within strict statutory deadlines. Counsel files the application materials, uploads them to the digital portal, hyperlinks CanLII citations, and argues the case during a pre-trial voir dire to exclude the tainted evidence.
Use this plan when representing an accused person where the state has obtained an incriminating statement in violation of the client's Charter rights. This fork focuses on challenging the admissibility of verbal or written confessions extracted during arbitrary detention or in violation of the right to counsel.
Use this plan when representing an accused person where the police have discovered physical evidence (such as weapons, drugs, or cash) as a direct consequence of a Charter-breaching statement. This fork assists counsel in navigating the complex intersection of self-incrimination and physical discovery.
Use this plan when representing an accused person where state actors have directly seized physical evidence (such as firearms, drugs, or electronic data) during an unlawful, warrantless search. This fork focuses on establishing unreasonable search and seizure under Section 8 of the Charter.
Key Legislation and Case Law: Governed by Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, and Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Justice Laws) and the Criminal Code (Justice Laws). The leading exclusionary framework is the three-branch balancing test established in R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32. Additional guidance on statement voluntariness and curing prior breaches is derived from R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54. Crucial guidelines on regulatory statements are set out in R. v. Korduner, 2026 SCC 12, and alternative sentence reductions under Section 24(1) are governed by R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6. Case law hyperlinking refers directly to CanLII (Canadian Legal Information Institute).
* Disclaimer: We're nobody's lawyer, because we aren't lawyers. You are, so you know better than to take legal advice from an app. We also aren't accountants or dog trainers - just digital spirit guides taking zero liability for any of this. This site exists to gather the collective knowledge of practitioners like you. Verify everything and submit your feedback on the Charter Evidence Exclusion Application (Accused) matter plan to improve the playbook. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, it's a request for input.
This legal matter plan provides a structured workflow for Criminal Law cases, outlining the standard Litigation process. Utilize these tracking templates to manage your legal cases efficiently.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
Got a question about this plan?
Ask in the practitioner Discord - edge cases, rule changes, and jurisdiction-specific nuances, all in one place.
Prepare the relevant forms and supporting materials required under the applicable legislation, ensuring all mandatory fields are completed and all attachments are properly certified.
Draft and dispatch formal correspondence addressing the procedural requirements at this stage, including any required notices, requests for information, or proposals for resolution.
Coordinate the collection and review of all financial documentation required for disclosure, including statements, valuations, and supporting schedules as mandated by the rules.
Conduct a thorough review of all filed materials to ensure compliance with court requirements, verify service obligations have been met, and prepare for the next procedural milestone.
Look specifically for gaps in audio or video logs, and cross-reference officer notes to check for retrospective collaboration.
Assess the strategic considerations for interim applications, prepare supporting evidence, and draft the necessary documentation for urgent or time-sensitive relief sought.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
Direct Section 8 violations (warrantless entries, bodily searches) represent severe intrusions that weigh heavily toward exclusion under Branch 2 of the R. v. Grant [2009] 2 SCR 353 test.
Prepare the relevant forms and supporting materials required under the applicable legislation, ensuring all mandatory fields are completed and all attachments are properly certified.
Psychological detention is established when a reasonable person in the individual's position would conclude they had no choice but to comply with police instructions. Key factors include police tone, physical control, and client vulnerability.
Draft and dispatch formal correspondence addressing the procedural requirements at this stage, including any required notices, requests for information, or proposals for resolution.
Failure to provide immediate access to counsel or failing to hold off questioning once counsel is requested constitutes a severe breach that strongly supports the exclusion of statements.