Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses R. v. Alexander, 2025 ONSC 57 where police tried to stop a vehicle for a traffic related reason. The driver — along with the vehicle’s passenger — fled from the attempted stop and then ran from the vehicle only to be apprehended nearby after a foot chase. The police searched the car and later — using a K9 — found a loaded handgun under a bush not far from where the driver was arrested. The defence lawyer alleged police action was tainted by racial profiling — the vehicle had been targeted because its occupants were young, black males driving late at night. Was this a valid claim? Was searching the vehicle incident to arrest for the offence of flight from police justified? Or did searching it exceed the scope of the common law power?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Pearson, 2017 ONCA 389 where a police officer, after stopping a motorist, arrested him for drug impaired driving. Police opened the trunk and searched a knapsack found in it, discovering two shotgun shells, which the officer seized. As it turned out, the driver was later charged with two murders, one occurring the day before the traffic stop and another about two weeks later. The shells found in the knapsack were similar in composition to the ones used to commit the murders and Crown wanted to tender them as evidence at the murder trials. But was their discovery lawful? Was opening the trunk and searching the knapsack as an incident to the drug impaired driving arrest valid? Or did it exceed the scope of the common law power?

Lower court ruling
Supreme Court of Canada leave dismissal

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses the case law classic R. v. Stonefish, 2019 ONCA 914 where a police officer, after stopping a motorist for an equipment violation, smelled the odour of burnt marihauana and saw a green leafy substance in the car’s console. The motorist was then arrested for possessing a controlled substance and police opened the car’s hood to discover a stash of cocaine in a Ziploc bag valued at between $11,000 — $18,000 on the street. Was opening the car’s hood lawful as an incident to the drug arrest for possession of this small amount of marihuana? Or did it exceed the scope of the common law power? Mike looks at these and other questions.

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses 'Christmas carding', a crime prevention tactic initiated several years ago. Listen how the project — dubbed OPERATION RESOLUTION — was started and how the media portrayed it. All the best to LIIP listeners this holiday season. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Homicide trends in Canada, 2023
AbbyPD Christmas Card

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Campbell, 2024 SCC 42 where police arrested a known drug dealer and lawfully seized his cellphone. After the arrest, four text messages lit up the locked cellphone screen and appeared to offer a sale of drugs, possibly laced with fentanyl. Without a warrant, the police engaged in a conversation with the sender of the texts by impersonating the drug dealer and — in the process — orchestrated a meet to purchase drugs. When the accused came to the drug dealer’s apartment, he was arrested and found in possession of heroin laced with fentanyl. Was the conduct of the police by engaging in the text conversation a search for Charter purposes? If it was a search, could the police lawfully do what they did? Was the situation facing the police urgent enough to trigger exigent circumstances? Was a Part VI authorization under the Criminal Code required? Did the search incident to arrest doctrine apply? 

Ontario Court of Appeal ruling  

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision R. v. Gallant, 2024 NBCA 135 where a police officer applied for and received a warrant to seize and analyze blood samples taken by hospital staff for medical purposes. The affiant’s ITO referenced police reports from two other officers as a basis for their reasonable grounds to support the warrant. This included (1) the circumstances surrounding a serious accident as reported to an officer by another driver and (2) the very strong odour of alcohol coming from the accused’s breath as detected by an officer accompanying him in the back of an ambulance on the way to the hospital. Did the affiant’s grounds supply a sufficient basis for the search warrant? And what sort of test does the reviewing judge use in deciding whether the authorizing judge could have issued the warrant?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision R. v. Kusi, 2024 ONSC 6248 where an officer searched a vehicle before towing it as being “apparently abandoned” under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act. After removing the cover of what turned out to be the vehicle’s electrical fuse box, the officer discovered fentanyl. Was this a valid inventory search? Or did it exceed the scope and was it conducted in an unreasonable manner as claimed by the defence?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Justice decision R. v. Hoggar, 2024 ONCJ 546 where an officer found drugs, a loaded handgun and extended magazines after arresting a man for PPT, towing his vehicle to a private garage, searching more than an hour later, all while using a K9 to sniff it and dismantling its door panels. No exigent circumstances existed nor did the officer obtain a search warrant. Did the delay and manner in which the warrantless search incident to arrest was conducted render it unlawful? Or was there some reasonable basis for the officer to do what he did?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Sabiston, 2024 SCC 33 where police arrested a known gang member for possessing stolen property. He was seen walking in a high gang crime area while wearing a bullet-proof vest that looked just like the type worn by police. After searching the man, a sawed-off shotgun was found in his backpack. Despite concluding the arrest was unlawful and police conduct breached s. 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) of the Charter, the trial judge found the police had enough suspicion to detain the man and could have searched him for safety anyway. Since the gun was discoverable through an otherwise lawful means (although not exercised), the evidence was admissible under s. 24(2) and the man was convicted of several weapon related offences. Listen to learn how Canada’s top court felt about all of this? 

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.

In this episode, Mike discusses the Court of Quebec decision R. v. Hennigar, 2024 QCCQ 4849 where police entered an apartment on the invite of a co-habitant to recover a loaded pistol she had found while cleaning a closet. Could the co-resident validly consent to the police entry in the accused's absence? Could the police conduct also be justified as a safety search? Or was a warrant required? Listen for the answers to these and other questions as they may help inform your future decision making.  

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]