R v Harrison, 2009 SCC 34 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The decision was a companion case of R v Grant, and applied the Supreme Court's new test to determine when evidence obtained from a Charter breach should be excluded.

On October 24, 2004, Bradley Harrison was driving an SUV with a friend near Kirkland Lake, Ontario.

He knew that it was rare for drivers to drive that stretch of the road at exactly the speed limit, which Harrison had been doing.

[2] At the Superior Court of Ontario, the trial judge found the detention was based on a hunch or suspicion, and not on reasonable grounds.

The judge also found that the search had nothing to do with why Harrison was arrested, and was therefore without lawful authority and violated section 8 of the Charter.

In determining whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, the judge applied the test found in R. v. Collins.

The majority applied the new test for section 24(2) of the Charter, enunciated in the companion case of R. v. Grant.

On the Seriousness of the Charter-Infringing State Conduct stage, the majority found that Bertoncello acted recklessly and represented a blatant disregard of Charter rights.

On the Society's Interest in an Adjudication on the Merits stage, the majority found that the cocaine was reliable evidence, and favoured admission.

's proposed test would balance the impact on the accused (which includes the seriousness of the officer's conduct) with the reliability of the evidence.