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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Randall,  2026 ONCA 631, where a police officer stopped a driver for tinted windows and saw an unwrapped cannabis vape pen in plain sight near the gearshift. Thinking he had enough grounds under Ontario's Cannabis Control Act for a search of the driver and the vehicle, the officer ultimately discovered controlled substances, evidence of trafficking, cash and a loaded handgun. A trial judge found the police breached the driver's Charter rights because the observation of the cannabis vape pen did not provide reasonable grounds there was improperly stored cannabis in the vehicle. All of the evidence was excluded and the driver was acquitted of the 21 criminal charges he faced. On appeal by Crown, Ontario's top court revisited the reasonable grounds issue. Did it agree with the trial judge? Or did it  come to a different conclusion? 

s. 12 Ontario's Cannabis Control Act:

Transporting cannabis

12(1) No person shall drive or have the care or control of a vehicle or boat, whether or not it is in motion, while any cannabis is contained in the vehicle or boat.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to cannabis that,

(a) is in its original packaging and has not been opened; or

(b) is packed in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to any person in the vehicle or boat.

Search of vehicle or boat

(3) A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that cannabis is being contained in a vehicle or boat in contravention of subsection (1) may at any time, without a warrant, enter and search the vehicle or boat and search any person found in it.

Other references:

• R. v. Randall, 2025 ONCJ 337 (application to exclude evidence)
• R. v. McGowan-Morris, 2025 ONCA 349 (s. 10(b) RTC)

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike responds to a listener's question about whether a search would still be lawful if an officer had multiple, simultaneous reasons for searching, and the court found some — but not all of the reasons — were objectively unreasonable? Would having an invalid reason in mind when searching nullify a coexistent valid reason for a search? 

References:

• R. v. Spice, 2026 SKPC 14
• R. v. Annett, 17 C.C.C. (3d) 332 (Ont. C.A.) leave to appeal refused, [1985] 1 S.C.R. v.
• R. v. Dreyer, 2008 BCCA 89
• R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24
• R. v. Caprara, 2006 Canlii 18518 (ONCA)
• R. v. Chubak, 2009 ABCA 8
• U.S. v. Hollaus, 2022 BCCA 272
• R. v. Russell, 2017 BCPC 60
• R. v. Dunkley, 2016 ONCA 597
• R. v. Cuff, 2018 ONCA 276
• R. v. Cooper, 2016 BCPC 259
• R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONSC 1494
• R. v. Daigle, 1994 CanLII 214 (BCCA)
• R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51

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 Edmonton Police Service v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24, where a police detective's expunged discipline record became an issue at trial. Did a provision in Alberta's Police Services Regulation removing a misconduct finding from an officer's disciplinary file also render the misconduct non-disclosable for criminal law purposes? Or did the expunged record still need to be disclosed by Crown to the accused because it may have been relevant to the detective's credibility, reliability or conduct during the investigation?

See also:

• R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3 
• R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326

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 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]