R. v. LeBlanc

R. v. LeBlanc

The search was not incident to a lawful arrest because Cst. Fish lacked objectively justifiable reasonable and probable grounds—the officer‑to‑officer tip was conclusory, uncorroborated and the source unrevealed—thus the s.8 right was violated; however the detention was not arbitrary given the officer's honest belief, any delay in s.10(b) notification was minor and justified by safety, and under s.24(2) admission of the handgun would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so the exclusion application was dismissed and the evidence admitted.

Citation
2009 NSSC 99
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jeremy Alvin LeBlanc
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application to Exclude Evidence (charter) at Trial
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence dismissed; handgun admitted into evidence
Legal Topics
Charter S.8, Charter S.9, Charter S.10(b), Search Incident to Arrest, Investigative Detention, Informant Tip Reliability, Exclusion Under S.24(2)
Source Language
English

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Jeremy Alvin LeBlanc

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application to Exclude Evidence (charter) at Trial

  1. 1 Whether police had authority to search and seize the handgun (lawful arrest or detention)
  2. 2 Whether the handgun is admissible despite any Charter breaches under s.24(2)
  3. 3 Whether the officer-to-officer tip provided sufficient objective reasonable and probable grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The search was not incident to a lawful arrest because Cst. Fish lacked objectively justifiable reasonable and probable grounds—the officer‑to‑officer tip was conclusory, uncorroborated and the source unrevealed—thus the s.8 right was violated; however the detention was not arbitrary given the officer's honest belief, any delay in s.10(b) notification was minor and justified by safety, and under s.24(2) admission of the handgun would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, so the exclusion application was dismissed and the evidence admitted.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence dismissed; handgun admitted into evidence

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence dismissed