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

In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Provincial Court decision R. v. Bajwa, 2025 BCPC 43 where police monitored and recorded — by video surveillance — a man using the toilet in cells for less than a minute. Although no genitalia was observed, his buttocks and thighs were videoed but there was no blurring, pixilation or blacking out of his toilet use, nor was he offered a privacy gown or shield. Did this videoing amount to an intrusion into the man’s privacy such that his right under s. 8 of the Charter — to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure — was breached? If yes, were the remedies of a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence in order?   

Decision on remedy (2025 BCPC 44)

BC Provincial Policing Standard 4.1.1 Video Surveillance Recording in Police Buildings

Toronto Police Service Policy — Privacy Shields

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike celebrates the Charter’s 43rd birthday! On April 17, 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. Listen to learn about some of the early discussion on the remedy provisions, from s. 26 to s. 24 to s. 24(1) and (2).

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 King's Bench decision R. v. Tierney, 2025 ABKB 223 where police delayed providing a man access to counsel for more than 16 hours after his arrest, claiming it was justified while seeking a search warrant for fear evidence might be destroyed. The police also failed to bring the man before a justice, waiting about 33 hours to do so. How did the judge feel about these delays after Crown conceded Charter breaches. Was evidence supporting serious charges excluded? This case provides a good summary of the case law and things a police officer needs to think about if delaying access to counsel.  

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

TRIGGER WARNING: This episode contains graphic content, including suicide, which may shock, offend or upset.

In this episode, Mike discusses the Supreme Court of Canada's 2024 Year in Review. How do last year's stats stack up against previous years? How long does it take the court to decide a matter? And how often is the court split on the outcome of a case?  

The Supreme Court of Canada Marks 150 Years of Service to Canadians

Royal Canadian Mint Supreme Court of Canada Commemorative Circulation Coin

Mike also updates two IIO cases.

IIO 2023-248: Mackenzie RCMP — Public Report

IIO 2022-249: Abbotsford Police — Information Bulletin

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses BC’s Independent Investigations Office (IIO) and referrals to Crown Counsel. What can be learned from the data? How long does it take for the IIO to conduct an investigation forwarded for prosecution? How long does it take before a decision on charges is made? And how many convictions have been obtained after trial? The answers may (or may not) surprise you!

IIO Annual Report 2023-2024
IIO Annual Report 2022-2023

2024-160: Saanich Police 

2021-171: Vernon RCMP — Crown's Clear Statement

2020-110: Williams Lake RCMP

2024-265: Vancouver Transit Police

2024-223: Abbotsford Police

2024-156: Nanaimo RCMP

2016-051: Prince George RCMP — trial judgement acquittal

BCPS Media & Clear Statement — Stay of proceedings relating to charges arising out of the death of Dale Culver

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. Donawa, 2025 SCC 10 where police found a handgun in a driver’s fanny pack during a roadside stop. The police sent the handgun for testing, but did not send the magazine or the ammunition found in it. A trial judge ruled the handgun was NOT a firearm — as defined under s. 2 of the Criminal Code — because it required special expertise, considerable time, and a part not readily available to make it operable. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision, finding the gun was an operable firearm because it was capable of firing when loaded. The Supreme Court of Canada was then asked to weigh in. Listen and find out what their take on the issue was. 

Criminal Code (s. 2):

"firearm means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm."

Lower court ruling

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

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

In this episode, Mike discusses a crime prevention project he spearheaded called “OPERATION LODESTAR”, meaning one who serves as a guide or model. As part of this initiative, a poster was released depicting a young boy dressed up like a gangster with the caption — “When I grow up I want to be just like daddy. Kids live what they learn. Be the parent your child needs.” The campaign was both criticized and commended. Listen how the project was started and maybe you can use some of what you learn.

Includes audio from Operation Lodestar: Parenting Matters video.

More resources including posters & Parenting Matters video link.

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. Kostuk, 2025 ONCA 195 where police arrested a man in the stabbing death of his friend. The man — who claimed he was suffering from schizophrenia and had not taken his medication — argued the police breached his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel because they (1) took no steps to address his mental health issues before he spoke with his lawyer and (2) did not give him another opportunity to speak with his lawyer after he had taken his medication. Were the police required to take the man to the hospital as he requested? Was a second advisement about the right to counsel required after the man received his medication? What is the test for assessing cognitive capacity in the s. 10(b) context? And just how did the Court of Appeal address these questions. 

Lower court ruling

Lower court 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 Ontario Court of Appeal decision R. v. Plummer, 2011 ONCA 350 where police saw a man seated in a vehicle illegally parked near an apartment door where people would buy drugs. As the police  passed by, the man appeared shocked or surprised and moved forward while slouching down as if to conceal something. When the man provided his name, the police recognized him as being associated to an officer safety alert describing him as possibly armed with a handgun. The man was asked to exit the vehicle and — when patted down — police found he was wearing a bullet proof vest. As police moved in to search the car, the man fled. Police discovered a loaded handgun in an overnight bag that was near where the man had been sitting. Was the man’s detention lawful? And, if he had standing to challenge the searches, was the vehicle and bag search valid as an incident to investigative detention? Or is this common law power limited only to a pat-down of the detainee?  

Lower court 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 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Harpold, 2024 SKCA 26, where a plain clothed police officer saw a man masturbating in his car in the parking lot of a mall as she walked by it and looked through the driver’s window. When this went to trial, the man argued his vehicle was not a “public place" for the purpose of an indecent act charge. Is a private motor vehicle parked in a public place itself a public place for the purpose of the “indecent act” provision? Does the express or implied “access” as of right or by invitation required in the meaning of “public place” require physical access, or is visual access sufficient?  Listen to find out what Saskatchewan’s top court ruled. 

Regina Police Service press release

Edmonton Service press release

R. v. Desylva, 2025 ABKB 130

Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]