This case law decision involves a frontline interrogation relative to a vehicle search that violated s. 8 Charter, resulted in a large drug seizure, and the admission of the drugs as evidence because of a paradigm shift in the way s. 24(2) Charter was applied by the Court. This case not only marks a common sense change in the application of s. 24(2) Charter, it is a point-of-reference case that applies s. 24(2) Charter the way it was intended.

Although this case does not directly involve a formal interrogation and confession, the ruling is significant because it will likely affect how s. 24(2) Charter will be applied in the future to the admissibility of any evidence. The derivative cases that may emerge will be monitored to determine the long-term effects, if any, on the admissibility of confessions.