Section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that evidence obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any Charter right shall be excluded if its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This is the mechanism by which unconstitutionally obtained evidence is kept out of criminal trials in Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada established the framework for section 24(2) applications in R v. Grant (2009). Courts consider three factors: the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct (more serious violations favour exclusion), the impact of the breach on the accused's Charter-protected interests (greater impact favours exclusion), and society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits (which may favour admission of reliable evidence).
Section 24(2) applications are central to criminal defence strategy. In impaired driving cases, they are used to exclude breathalyzer results obtained after right-to-counsel violations. In drug cases, they are used to exclude evidence seized during unconstitutional searches. In sexual assault cases, they can be used to exclude statements obtained without proper Charter warnings. A successful section 24(2) application often results in an acquittal because the Crown can no longer prove its case without the excluded evidence.