R. v. J.C.L.

R. v. J.C.L.

Although the officers smelled fresh marijuana, on balance there were no reasonable grounds for arrest based solely on odor given sealed packaging, modest quantity, lack of recent specialized training and absence of other indicia; this constituted a s.8 breach. However, under s.24(2) the breach was not flagrant, officers acted in good faith, the evidence was reliable and the public interest in adjudicating a serious CDSA charge outweighed exclusion, so the evidence is admissible.

Citation
2011 NSPC 91
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: J.C.L.; Accused: F.R.B.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal (cdsa Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking) / Voir Dire Admissibility of Evidence (section 8 and Section 24(2) Charter)
Outcome
Voir dire dismissed; evidence obtained from the search is admissible.
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Reasonable Grounds for Arrest, Olfactory Evidence, Charter S.8, Charter S.24(2), Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Reasonable Grounds for Arrest Olfactory Evidence Charter S.8 Charter S.24(2) +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

J.C.L.

Accused

F.R.B.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (cdsa Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking) / Voir Dire Admissibility of Evidence (section 8 and Section 24(2) Charter)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unaided sense of smell provided objective reasonable grounds to arrest for possession
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained after the arrest should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Although the officers smelled fresh marijuana, on balance there were no reasonable grounds for arrest based solely on odor given sealed packaging, modest quantity, lack of recent specialized training and absence of other indicia; this constituted a s.8 breach. However, under s.24(2) the breach was not flagrant, officers acted in good faith, the evidence was reliable and the public interest in adjudicating a serious CDSA charge outweighed exclusion, so the evidence is admissible.

Court Disposition

Voir dire dismissed; evidence obtained from the search is admissible.

Orders

  • Evidence obtained from the search is admissible; s.24(2) exclusion declined