Legal Issues In Policing

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision R. v. Singer, 2026 SKCA 52, an update to Episode 138 (R. v. Singer, 2026 SCC 8). In this case, Saskatchewan’s top court had to determine the outstanding ground of appeal it refused to address: whether the accused’s right to a fair trial was prejudiced because the arresting officer — prior to testifying — allegedly overheard defence counsel’s submissions taking issue with the grounds to make a breath demand and whether it was made forthwith. The Court of Appeal initially found it unnecessary to deal with this issue because it excluded crucial evidence, having concluded the police infringed the accused’s right to be free from unreasonable search by entering his driveway, opening the door of his truck and rousing him. But when the Supreme Court overturned Saskatchewan's opinion on the s. 8 breach, it sent the matter back for a resolution on the fair trial issue. Mike has the break down for you!
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision R. v. Francois, 2025 MBCA 93 where police, on routine patrol in a high crime area, saw a man in a back alley operating a grinder while leaning over a BMX bike. After briefly questioning the man about the bike, an officer — an avid biker himself — found things just didn't add up, so he arrested the man thinking the bike was stolen or being stolen. A search of the man and his back-pack resulted in the discovery of a sawed-off .22 calibre rifle, ammunition and an angle grinder. Was the man detained prior to his arrest such that he was entitled to be advised of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel? Did police observations and officer experience with bikes render the man's arrest lawful? Listen carefully as to how the officer articulated his grounds as this street encounter played out. How the Court of Appeal saw the matter may assist you with a similar encounter. 
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. Singer, 2026 SCC 8 where police, responding to a reported impaired driver, saw a truck matching the suspect vehicle description parked in a private driveway with its engine running and lights on. Officers walked up the driveway to the truck and saw a man sleeping or passed out in the driver's seat. The man was unresponsive to knocks at the window, so police opened the truck's door, woke the man up  and observed signs of impairment. An ASD failure resulted in a ride to the police detachment, where the man refused a breath test. A trial judge found the police did nothing wrong, their actions were Charter compliant, and convicted the man of refusal. A Court of Appeal ruled otherwise and acquitted the man. Find out how the Supreme Court saw it when it weighed in. Was the conduct of the police in entering the driveway and approaching the truck consistent with the common law's implied licence doctrine? Was opening the truck's door lawful? This is an important case to understand because you use this doctrine on a regular basis, whether you realize it or not. 
Related cases:
R. v. Singer, 2023 SKCA 123
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's 2025 Year in Review. How do last year's numbers stack up against previous years? And how often does the court disagree on the outcome of a case?  
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message.
In this episode, Mike discusses the BC Supreme Court decision R. v. Watroba, 2025 BCSC 815 where police saw a man, who they recognized as someone known to be involved in drug trafficking, standing outside a shopping mall with an easily accessible machete strapped across his back. This led to an investigative detention, a pat-down, the search of a satchel, the discovery of fentanyl and ultimately an arrest. The man was charged with possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace and two counts of PPT. His lawyer, as one might expect, challenged every aspect of the police interaction on Charter grounds. Did the police have enough cause to detain? Was the pat-down legitimate? Was looking in the satchel justified on the basis of officer safety? And was the arrest lawful? Listen to learn what the judge ruled. It may just help you in a future case like it. 
Related cases:
R. v. Watroba, 2025 BCSC 2192
R. v. Watroba, 2025 BCSC 2209
Thanks for listening! Feedback welcome at [email protected]