Legal Issues In Policing

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]

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

In this episode, Mike looks back to the basics of search and seizure law by using the  acronym  CLEW — Consent | Lawful Exception | Warrant — that you can use to think about this important investigative tool. 

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. Bateman, 2025 BCSC 1780 where police responded to an abandoned 911 call. Suspecting a possible domestic, an officer patted-down a man who answered the door at the residence. After feeling something “hard” and “firm” in the man’s hoodie pocket, the officer reached in and removed the object, subsequently discovering it to be cocaine wrapped in a Ziplock baggie. Was the initial pat down lawful and, if so, was reaching into the pocket and removing the object for its inspection justified? Did either — or both — of these police actions exceed what was permitted in the circumstances? Listen and find out how a judge ruled on the matter. 

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. Araya, 2025 ABCA 61 where police mistakenly arrested the wrong man for robbery. When the man was searched, police found a loaded handgun in the satchel he was carrying. Did the mistaken identity render the arrest unlawful? Or did the officer still have reasonable grounds for arrest even though it turned out he arrested the wrong person? Find out what the appeal court ruled on this matter and other issues such as (1) whether an imminent threat was required before police could search the satchel and (2) whether delaying access to counsel before a search warrant could be executed was justified.  

Other related cases:

• R. v. Araya, 2022 ABCJ 261 (voir dire)
• R. v. Araya, 2023 ABCJ 174 (decision)
• R. v. Araya — Supreme Court of Canada leave dismissal
• R. v. Lugela, 2023 ABCJ 176 (voir dire)
• R. v. Lugela, 2023 ABCJ 288 (decision)
• R. v. Lugela, 2024 ABCJ 74 (sentencing)
• R. v. Lugela, 2025 ABCA 194 (appeal)

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. Breau, 2025 NBCA 95 where police arrested a woman for drug trafficking. When police searched the vehicle she was driving, drugs — including methamphetamine, MDMA, and cocaine — along with other evidence was discovered. The woman argued the police did not have sufficient grounds to arrest her, rendering her detention arbitrary — a s. 9 Charter breach. A trial judge upheld the arrest, but she appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Find out what the appeal court ruled when it weighed in on the matter. 

cumulative —  increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions.  

commonsensical — demonstrating a practical and sensible perception of the situation or facts.

contextual — depending on or relating to the circumstances that form the setting of an event.

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]