To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Impaired driving — Random sobriety stop
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention

(0:00:11) Joint Reasons for Judgment: Wagner C.J. and O’Bonsawin J. (Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. concurring)
(0:00:14) I. Overview – 1
(0:01:19) II. Facts – 3
(0:03:42) III. Relevant Provisions – 8
(0:05:17) IV. Judicial History – 12
(0:05:19) A. Ontario Court of Justice – 12
(0:06:59) B. Ontario Superior Court of Justice – 16
(0:08:31) C. Court of Appeal for Ontario – 19
(0:11:38) V. Issues – 24
(0:13:25) VI. Analysis – 28
(0:13:27) A. Was the Random Sobriety Stop Authorized by Section 48(1) of the HTA? – 28
(0:16:44) (1) The Meaning of Section 48(1) of the HTA – 34
(0:25:52) (2) The Random Sobriety Stop Breached Mr. McColman's Section 9 Charter Rights – 51
(0:26:48) B. Should the Evidence Obtained Have Been Excluded Under Section 24(2) of the Charter? – 53
(0:28:46) (1) The Seriousness of the Charter-Infringing Conduct – 57
(0:35:12) (2) The Impact of the Breach on the Charter-Protected Interests of Mr. McColman – 66
(0:37:21) (3) Society's Interest in the Adjudication of the Case on its Merits – 69
(0:39:50) (4) Balancing the Grant Factors – 74
(0:40:29) VII. Conclusion – 75