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

In this episode, Mike discusses the power to arrest, without warrant, an offender in breach of their conditional release — unescorted temporary absence, parole or statutory release — and how the authority under s. 137.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) came to be. 

CCRA definitions (s. 99(1)):

day parole means the authority granted to an offender by the Board or a provincial parole board to be at large during the offender’s sentence in order to prepare the offender for full parole or statutory release, the conditions of which require the offender to return to a penitentiary, community-based residential facility, provincial correctional facility or other location each night or at another specified interval.

full parole means the authority granted to an offender by the Board or a provincial parole board to be at large during the offender’s sentence.

statutory release means release from imprisonment subject to supervision before the expiration of an offender’s sentence, to which an offender is entitled under section 127.

unescorted temporary absence means an unescorted temporary absence from penitentiary authorized under section 116.

CCRA Arrest Authorities:

Arrest without warrant

137(2) A peace officer who believes on reasonable grounds that a warrant is in force under this Part or under the authority of a provincial parole board for the apprehension of a person may arrest the person without warrant and remand the person in custody.

Arrest without warrant — breach of conditions

137.1 A peace officer may arrest without warrant an offender who has committed a breach of a condition of their parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence, or whom the peace officer finds committing such a breach, unless the peace officer

(a) believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest may be satisfied without arresting the person, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to

(i) establish the identity of the person, or

(ii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the breach; and

(b) does not believe on reasonable grounds that the person will fail to report to their parole supervisor in order to be dealt with according to law if the peace officer does not arrest the person.

Additional References:

Arrest Without Warrant: Handbook for Front-line Peace Officers 2013

R. v. Loewen, 2018 SKCA 69 (lower court decision 2015 SKPC 12)

Video — Parole: Contributing to Public Safety

2023 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview (July 2025)

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike offers a Christmas message for all law enforcement officers. 

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. Carignan, 2025 SCC 43 where a police officer arrested a man under s. 495 of the Criminal Code. At trial, in the Court of Quebec, the man wanted a voir dire held to determine the lawfulness of his arrest because — he claimed — the police did not comply with s. 495(2) and he sought the exclusion of an incriminating statement he made to police under s. 24(2) of the Charter. But the judge refused to hold a voir dire, concluding s. 495(3) rendered an arrest that did not comply with s. 495(2) lawful in a criminal proceeding, including one in which the arrestee was on trial. The man was convicted of sexual assault and he was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and placed on probation for a period of two years. He appealed to Quebec's highest court, which ruled the trial judge erred. In its view, s. 495(3) did not prevent an accused from challenging the legality of their arrest. By refusing to hold a voir dire, the judge deprived the man of the opportunity to allege and establish non-compliance with s. 495(2). The man's appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered. The Crown then appealed the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision to Canada's top court, where all nine judges heard the matter and rendered an unanimous decision. Listen to learn what every law enforcement officer should know about the effect non compliance with s. 495(2) has on the lawfulness of an arrest made under s. 495(1) and its interplay with s. 495(3). 

Criminal Code power of arrest:

495 (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant

(a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence

(b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or

(c) a person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found.

Limitation

(2) A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for

(a) an indictable offence mentioned in section 553,

(b) an offence for which the person may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction, or

(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction,

in any case where

(d) he believes on reasonable grounds that the public interest, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to

(i) establish the identity of the person,

(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence, or

(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence, 

may be satisfied without so arresting the person, and

(e) he has no reasonable grounds to believe that, if he does not so arrest the person, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

Consequences of arrest without warrant

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a peace officer acting under subsection (1) is deemed to be acting lawfully and in the execution of his duty for the purposes of

(a) any proceedings under this or any other Act of Parliament; and

(b) any other proceedings, unless in any such proceedings it is alleged and established by the person making the allegation that the peace officer did not comply with the requirements of subsection (2).

Other provisions mentioned in the podcast: ss. 493, 49

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses the Alberta Court of Appeal decision R. v. Ouellette, 2025 ABCA 340 where a police officer accompanied an impaired driving suspect in the rear of an ambulance. While enroute to the hospital, the officer overheard the EMT ask the driver questions about drug and alcohol consumption and recorded her responses in his notebook. The officer then used this information in a warrant to seize the driver's medically taken blood samples. Did the police breach s. 8 of the Charter by riding in the ambulance and taking notes of what the driver said to the EMT about her consumption of alcohol and drugs? A trial judge thought so, as did a summary conviction appeal judge. Listen to learn what a three judge panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal had to say when it weighed in. 

Summary conviction appeal decision. (2023 ABKB 342)

Other references:

• R. v. Singh, 2024 ONCA 66
• R. v. S.S., 2023 ONCA 130

Hon. John Joseph Connolly

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. Dalia, 2025 ONCA 772 where police delayed providing an arrestee access to counsel until a house — the target of a search warrant — was secured. A sergeant expected an officer would learn via police radio when the home was secure and then facilitate access to a lawyer, while the officer was expecting further instruction from the sergeant before doing so. This miscommunication resulted in a s. 10(b) Charter breach. Listen and learn how you might avoid a similar situation. 

s. 10(b) Charter — "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention … to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right."

Sentencing decision. (2023 ONSC 2114)

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. Jackson, 2025 ONCA 717 where police — after witnessing a suspected drug deal — stopped a vehicle, claiming a passenger was not wearing his seat belt. During the interaction, police saw cannabis shake (green specs and flakes) on the dashboard, smelled fresh marihuana and noticed an air freshener in the vehicle. When the man was about to be searched under Ontario's Cannabis Control Act, he fled, only to be chased down and arrested. A search incident to arrest turned up two ounces of fentanyl in his possession and other drugs in the vehicle. When this went to court the man alleged the police used the seatbelt infraction as a false pretext to arbitrarily detain him and search for drugs, and he wanted the evidence excluded. Was the traffic stop lawful? Or did the police use their Highway Traffic Act authority as a ruse — a false flag — to pull the vehicle over and search it? What you might learn may help you with future stops where you are suspicious of a vehicle's occupants while at the same time witness a traffic related infraction.  

Sentencing reasons (R. v. Jackson, 2024 ONSC 2402).

Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (HTA)

s. 216(1) HTA:

A police officer, in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a vehicle, other than a bicycle, to stop and the driver of a vehicle, when signalled or requested to stop by a police officer who is readily identifiable as such, shall immediately come to a safe stop.

s. 106(3) HTA:

Every person who is at least 16 years old and is a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway shall, (a)  occupy a seating position for which a seat belt assembly has been provided; and (b)  wear the complete seat belt assembly as required by subsection (5). 

Ontario's Cannabis Control Act (CCA)

s. 12(1) CCA:

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.

s. 12(2) CCA:

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. 

s. 12(3) CCA:

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 reference:

• R. v. Kaddoura, 2009 BCCA 113.

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. Samuels, 2025 ONCA 736 where police arrested a man for drug trafficking and searched him at the scene incident to arrest by lifting his shirt and removing a bag of drugs sticking out from his underwear waistband. The man's sweatpants were then lowered to his knees, exposing a pair of jeans underneath, so officer's could search his pockets. Police found a trove or drugs and drug-related evidence. Did these searches amount to a "strip search" such that special rules applied? Or were they more akin to a pat-down or frisk search, requiring no additional justification? Listen to learn on which side of this issue Ontario's top court fell? 

References:

• Lower court ruling (R. v. Samuels, 2023 ONCJ 596).
• Sentencing decision (R. v. Samuels, 2023 ONCJ 597).
• R. v. Choi, 2021 BCCA 410.
• R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83.

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. Wilson, 2025 SCC 32 where police arrested people present at a drug overdose after someone called 9-1-1 for emergency medical assistance. A search incident to arrest revealed modified handguns, firearm parts and ammunition inside a nearby vehicle. Was the arrest lawful? Or did the amendments made to the CDSA under the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act exempt a person present at the overdose not only from a charge or conviction for simple possession — as the text expressly provides — but also from arrest? If the arrest was unlawful, what should happen to the evidence? 

• Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (2023 SKCA 106)
• Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act video
• S.O.S.

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. Brabant, 2025 SKCA 101 where police arrested a man without reasonable grounds to do so. When the man was searched, police found meth in his pocket and a sawed-off rifle under his sweater. Although the trial judge found Charter breaches — arbitrary detention and unreasonable search — the evidence was nevertheless admitted because the police could have detained the man and patted him down for safety and discovered the evidence anyway. Did the trial judge properly consider discoverability of the evidence in his s. 24(2) analysis? Or should the evidence have been excluded? Listen and find out how Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal felt about the trial judge’s 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 Ontario Court of Appeal  decision R. v. Ngo, 2025 ONCA 685 where police conducted a no-knock entry when executing a search warrant? Was departing from the knock-and-announce rule justified in the circumstances? Or did police action render the manner of search unreasonable?

Lower court decision (R. v. Ngo, 2022 ONSC 3700)

Sentencing decision (R. v. Ngo, 2023 ONSC 282)

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]