Yes, Canadian law is on the basis of "having regard to all the circumstances". That's been used by judges to keep evidence that should technically have been excluded but in doing so would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute". ie: where in the US you can "poison tree" evidence on clerical errors, improper procedures, etc. Canadian courts have the leeway to say "this was a minor infringement of the individual's rights without intent and we're not going to get rid of the only evidence that proves this guy raped kids." or the opposite and say "this guy was tortured for the information that led to the evidence and you wouldn't have found it otherwise, you can no longer use that evidence".