Nor do we think the reception of this evidence is foreclosed by Regina v. Dyment. The employment of s. 24(2) of the Charter must be determined case by case. In Dyment the possession by the hospital of the suspect's blood led to a seizure of evidence by the simple choice of the accused's attending physician who handed it to the police and thereby infringed his patient's confidence and his privacy. It was excluded. In this case the hospital's possession of the accused's blood sample was terminated by the production of a warrant of search which could not have been ignored by the accused's medical advisors.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.