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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Hayatibahar, 2026 ONCA 507, where police arrested two men for impaired driving following a fatal crash. The catch? There was only one driver. Was the arrest of both men for an offence that could only have been committed by one of them justified? And was a search of the accused's pockets at the hospital some two hours after his arrest reasonable? Or was the arrest unlawful resulting in s. 8 (unreasonable search) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) Charter breaches? 

Related lower court cases:

• 2022 ONSC 1281 (Charter application)
• 2022 ONSC 3692 (reasons for judgment)
• 2022 ONSC 5154 (reasons for sentence)

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Provincial Court decision R. v. Spice, 2026 SKPC 14, where a police officer searched a truck after arresting its driver for impaired. The officer testified he searched the truck — which was being impounded — as an incident to arrest to ensure there was nothing that would be dangerous to the tow truck driver. During the search, the officer saw a box of watermelon vodka. At trial, the accused wanted this observation, along with the certificate of analysis of his breath samples, excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. As for the vehicle search, the Crown submitted the officer was permitted to search the vehicle as an incident to arrest to discover evidence that may be used at the accused's trial. Was the search lawful as an incident to arrest? Could the Crown save the search by providing an objectively reasonable purpose for it that was not articulated by the officer? Listen carefully as this case underscores the importance of not only knowing your authorities but also the reasons for which they may be exercised. 

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses implied licence and the impact of a "NO TRESPASSING" sign. Does the posting of such a sign neuter the implied licence doctrine or does it merely state what the law already recognizes: a person entering onto another's property must have a legitimate reason for doing so? Doesn't implied licence provide members of the public, including police officers, the right to enter private property on legitimate business so long as they do not otherwise exceed the scope of the doctrine? What effect, if any, would a "NO TRESPASSING" sign — standing alone — have on this longstanding common law invitation to knock? Listen as Mike tries to make his case. 

Cases referenced:

• R. v. Evans, [1996] 1 SCR 8
• R. v. Singer, 2026 SCC 6
• R. v. Skerratt, 2003 BCPC 456
• Larkin v. Bourque, 2026 NSSC 75
• Entick v. Carrington (1765), 2 Wils. K.B. 275

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Quebec Court of Appeal decision R. v. Paul, 2026 QCCA 552, where a police officer saw a known drug user acting suspiciously late at night. This person was nervous, evasive and appeared uncomfortable about police presence. After speaking with the man, police  surreptitiously followed him, saw him approach a running vehicle with its headlights out, and watched as he appeared to interact with its driver. After noticing police, the man fled. Police then approached the vehicle and, using a flashlight, lit up its interior to find it occupied and observed an electronic scale with white residue on the floor. Police ordered the driver out of the vehicle to arrest him for drug possession and saw a baggie of cocaine on the seat where he was sitting. The driver was subsequently charged with PPT. Was the officer justified in approaching the vehicle? Was the use of a flashlight a search? Did the officer have enough grounds for an arrest? Did pulling back the arrestee's pants and underwear waistband when frisking him at the roadside amount to a "strip search"?

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Court of Appeal decision R. v. Dinh, 2026 BCCA 190, where police, acting on an anonymous Crime Stoppers' tip,  followed a woman onto a ferry and later arrested her after she met with a man at a parking lot and exchanged bags. Police searched her car and found a kilogram of fentanyl hidden in the spare tire compartment of her trunk. The woman claimed her arrest was unlawful for lack of reasonable grounds and she wanted the evidence against her excluded. Was the officer able to weave his grounds for arrest to the requisite threshold? Or did the police breach the woman's s. 9 Charter right not to be arbitrarily detained? Listen and learn how the court decided the matter. 

Related cases:

• R. v. Dinh, 2023 BCSC 2446
• R. v. Dinh, 2023 BCSC 2447 
• R. v. Dinh, 2023 BCSC 2448 
• R. v. Dinh, 2024 BCSC 109 (sentencing)

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Singer, 2026 SKCA 52, an update to Episode 138 (R. v. Singer, 2026 SCC 8). In this case, Saskatchewan’s top court had to determine the outstanding ground of appeal it refused to address: whether the accused’s right to a fair trial was prejudiced because the arresting officer — prior to testifying — allegedly overheard defence counsel’s submissions taking issue with the grounds to make a breath demand and whether it was made forthwith. The Court of Appeal initially found it unnecessary to deal with this issue because it excluded crucial evidence, having concluded the police infringed the accused’s right to be free from unreasonable search by entering his driveway, opening the door of his truck and rousing him. But when the Supreme Court overturned Saskatchewan's opinion on the s. 8 breach, it sent the matter back for a resolution on the fair trial issue. Mike has the break down for you!

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Francois, 2025 MBCA 93 where police, on routine patrol in a high crime area, saw a man in a back alley operating a grinder while leaning over a BMX bike. After briefly questioning the man about the bike, an officer — an avid biker himself — found things just didn't add up, so he arrested the man thinking the bike was stolen or being stolen. A search of the man and his back-pack resulted in the discovery of a sawed-off .22 calibre rifle, ammunition and an angle grinder. Was the man detained prior to his arrest such that he was entitled to be advised of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel? Did police observations and officer experience with bikes render the man's arrest lawful? Listen carefully as to how the officer articulated his grounds as this street encounter played out. How the Court of Appeal saw the matter may assist you with a similar encounter. 

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. Singer, 2026 SCC 8 where police, responding to a reported impaired driver, saw a truck matching the suspect vehicle description parked in a private driveway with its engine running and lights on. Officers walked up the driveway to the truck and saw a man sleeping or passed out in the driver's seat. The man was unresponsive to knocks at the window, so police opened the truck's door, woke the man up  and observed signs of impairment. An ASD failure resulted in a ride to the police detachment, where the man refused a breath test. A trial judge found the police did nothing wrong, their actions were Charter compliant, and convicted the man of refusal. A Court of Appeal ruled otherwise and acquitted the man. Find out how the Supreme Court saw it when it weighed in. Was the conduct of the police in entering the driveway and approaching the truck consistent with the common law's implied licence doctrine? Was opening the truck's door lawful? This is an important case to understand because you use this doctrine on a regular basis, whether you realize it or not. 

Related cases:

• R. v. Singer, 2023 SKCA 123

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's 2025 Year in Review. How do last year's numbers stack up against previous years? And how often does the court disagree on the outcome of a case?  

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Watroba, 2025 BCSC 815 where police saw a man, who they recognized as someone known to be involved in drug trafficking, standing outside a shopping mall with an easily accessible machete strapped across his back. This led to an investigative detention, a pat-down, the search of a satchel, the discovery of fentanyl and ultimately an arrest. The man was charged with possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace and two counts of PPT. His lawyer, as one might expect, challenged every aspect of the police interaction on Charter grounds. Did the police have enough cause to detain? Was the pat-down legitimate? Was looking in the satchel justified on the basis of officer safety? And was the arrest lawful? Listen to learn what the judge ruled. It may just help you in a future case like it. 

Related cases:

• R. v. Watroba, 2025 BCSC 2192
• R. v. Watroba, 2025 BCSC 2209

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]