R. v. Day
- Citation
- 2014 SCC 74
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 9 December 2014
- Posture
- Criminal Charter Challenge / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 9 December 2014
- Posture
- Criminal Charter Challenge / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in finding absence of subjective and objective grounds for arrest; the arrest was lawful and the search of the vehicle valid, so the acquittal based on excluded evidence was set aside and a new trial was ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision restored.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada
- New trial ordered by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
02
Material facts
Parties
Ryan Paul Day
Appellant Counsel: Kenneth J. MahoneyHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Mark Covan; Andrew O. Brown03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Charter Challenge / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant was arbitrarily detained or lawfully arrested (subjective and objective grounds)
- 02
Whether the warrantless search of the appellant’s vehicle was lawful as a search incident to arrest
- 03
Whether the evidence seized should have been excluded at trial
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the trial judge correctly excluded the evidence because the arrest was unlawful (no subjective belief or objectively reasonable grounds) and the subsequent vehicle search was therefore invalid.
- Respondent
- Crown argued the arrest was lawful on both subjective and objective grounds, the search of the vehicle was valid as incident to arrest, and the evidence was admissible; Court of Appeal agreed and ordered a new trial.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal (2014 NLCA 14)
A lawful arrest requires both the officer’s subjective belief that an arrest is necessary and objectively reasonable grounds for that belief.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Day, 2014 SCC 74
Police may search a vehicle without a warrant where the search is incident to a lawful arrest under established principles governing search and seizure.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in finding absence of subjective and objective grounds for arrest; the arrest was lawful and the search of the vehicle valid, so the acquittal based on excluded evidence was set aside and a new trial was ordered.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision restored.
- Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada
- New trial ordered by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 9 December 2014
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 9 December 2014
R. v. Day Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2014-12-09 Neutral citation 2014 SCC 74 Report [2014] 3 SCR 614 Case number 35822 Judges McLachlin, Beverley; Rothstein, Marshall; Moldaver, Michael J.; Wagner, Richard On appeal from Newfoundland and Labrador Subjects Constitutional law Notes SCC Case Information: 35822 Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Day, 2014 SCC 74, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 614 Date: 20141208 Docket: 35822 Between: Ryan Paul Day Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Rothstein, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (para.
1) McLachlin C.J. (Rothstein, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon JJ. concurring) r. v. day, 2014 SCC 74, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 614 Ryan Paul Day Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Day 2014 SCC 74 File No.: 35822. 2014: December 8. Present: McLachlin C.J. and Rothstein, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland and labrador Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention — Search and seizure — Search incident to arrest — Accused’s car searched without warrant and marihuana found — Evidence seized excluded following voir dire — Court of Appeal held that trial judge erred in finding absence of subjective and objective grounds for arrest — Arrest lawful and search valid. APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal (Welsh, Rowe and Hoegg JJ.A.), 2014 NLCA 14, 349 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1, 1085 A.P.R. 1, 10 C.R. (7th) 152, [2014] N.J. No. 68 (QL), 2014 CarswellNfld 78, setting aside the accused’s acquittal for trafficking marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed. Kenneth J. Mahoney, for the appellant. Mark Covan and Andrew O. Brown, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] The Chief Justice — In spite of the able argument of Mr. Mahoney, we are all of the view to dismiss the appeal for the reasons of Hoegg J.A. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Bristow Moyse, St. John’s. Solicitor for the respondent: Public Prosecution Service of Canada, St. John’s.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.