R. c. Bousclair

R. c. Bousclair

Court found no detention under s.9 when officer approached and questioned applicant; although applicant had not been informed of a right to refuse (consent imperfect), the totality of objectively corroborated facts gave police reasonable suspicion to lawfully deploy a sniffer dog under the common law rule, so there...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 NSSC 151
Parties
Respondent: Sa Majesté la Reine; Applicant: Mathieu Boisclair
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal (charter Application Re: Search, Detention, Evidence) / Trial Decision
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence dismissed; evidence admissible
Legal Topics
Charter S.8, Charter S.9, Charter S.10(b), Charter S.24(2), Consent to Search, Sniffer Dog Searches, Reasonable Suspicion, Detention
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Search and Seizure Evidence Charter S.8 Charter S.9 Charter S.10(b) Charter S.24(2) +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sa Majesté la Reine

Respondent

Mathieu Boisclair

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (charter Application Re: Search, Detention, Evidence) / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was arbitrarily detained under s.9 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether consent to search was valid and voluntary
  3. 3 Whether police had reasonable suspicion to justify a sniffer-dog search under common law

Ratio Decidendi

Court found no detention under s.9 when officer approached and questioned applicant; although applicant had not been informed of a right to refuse (consent imperfect), the totality of objectively corroborated facts gave police reasonable suspicion to lawfully deploy a sniffer dog under the common law rule, so there was no Charter breach and the seized drugs were admissible. Alternatively, even if a breach occurred, officers acted in good faith and exclusion under s.24(2) would be inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence dismissed; evidence admissible

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence under the Charter dismissed
  • Seized controlled substances admitted as evidence