Decision of the Week – Charter Challenge for Search under the Traffic Safety Act

A frequent request of the library is for research on the validity of a search of a vehicle. This decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal analyses the steps the police must take to ensure compliance with sections 8, 9, 10 and 24(2) of the Charter.


[3]               The appellant appears to urge that this dominant objective in the mind of the police officer, contaminated the interaction with the appellant such as to occasion within the interaction between them the following “cascading” series of Charter breaches: (a) an almost immediate and continuing arbitrary detention contrary to s 9 of the Charter, (b) an improper questioning contrary to s 10 of the Charter, (c) unreasonable searches and seizures under s 8 of the Charter in the forms of a police dog sniffing around the vehicle and a pat down search of the appellant, (d) an unlawful delay in advising the appellant the reason for detention contrary to s 10(a) of the Charter and (e) an unlawful delay of advisement of the appellant’s right to counsel on detention under s 10(b) of the Charter: adapting what this Court said in R v Ali2016 ABCA 261 (CanLII) at para 3, [2016] AJ No 914 (QL).


[4]               The appellant goes on to say the evidence of the police seizure of hard drugs and a gun with ammunition from the vehicle should be excluded under s 24(2) of the Charter.

2019 ABCA 93

What is interesting to me is that Watson, J. references Crozier v. Cundey, a decision of 1827:


[35]           For what it is worth, the real mitochondrial father of both discretionary powers and limits thereon by police may be Crozier v Cundey (1827), 6 B&C. 232[1]. There, speaking as if it had long been thus, the King’s Bench noted where police might proceed without warrant and when they might not[2]Crozier need not be dismissed as merely a quirk of history. Tracing its influence through later cases shows it to be a foundation stone on which a significant part of police authority and its limits came to be constructed over the generations.

R. v. Zolmer, 2019 ABCA 93. H/t to “What’s hot on CanLII”.

Legislative Updates

4th Session of the 41st Legislature

New Bills

Government Bills:

Private Member’s Bills:

Check the Bill Status daily to follow the legislative process.

Proclamations

The Government has proclaimed the following Act:

The Government Notices Modernization Act (Various Acts Amended) (S.M. 2018, c. 28), part 1 effective April 1, 2019.

Part 1 of this Act amends The Queen’s Printer Act to establish the deputy minister of the department that administers the Act as the Queen’s Printer and to require the Queen’s Printer to make The Manitoba Gazette, an official government publication, available to the public online at no cost.

Part 2 of this Act amends provisions in 24 statutes that relate to the government’s publication of official notices. These amendments remove references to printed “issues” of The Manitoba Gazette so that it may be published online. Several requirements to publish a notice or document in a newspaper are replaced with the requirement or option of publishing it in The Manitoba Gazette.

Contents Update – Estates Trusts & Pensions Journal

Volume 38 No.1 of the Estates Trusts & Pensions Journal has arrived in the library

Contents

From the Legislature

  • SDA Section 3 Survival Kit: an Invisible Plane, a Golden Lasso, and a Bat Phone by Wendy Griesdorf

Article

  • Resolving Grave Disputes by Jason Ward

If you are a member of the Law Society of Manitoba and would like to receive a copy of any of these articles, please contact us at library@lawsociety.mb.ca

Legislative Updates

The 4th Session of the 41st Legislature resumed on March 6, 2019.

New Bills

Government Bills:

Private Members’ Bills:

Check the Bill Status daily to follow the legislative process.

Orders in Council, February 2019

Decision of the Week: Reference re Health Care Certification

The Manitoba Court of Appeal released this Reference re Certification in the Manitoba Health Sector, 2019 MBCA 18.


[2]                           This matter comes before this Court as a reference from the Manitoba Labour Board (the Board).  The Board may refer any question of law for a final determination by this Court (see section 143(4) of The Labour Relations Act, CCSM c L10 (the LRA)).  This reference concerns a controversy that has arisen as to the correct procedure for non-unionised employees in the health sector organising for the purpose of collective bargaining under this new model.  The dispute is about who is the appropriate decision-maker as to an application for certification in the health sector.  The two possibilities are the Board exercising its authority under the LRA or the Commissioner exercising his authority under the Act.

A unanimous Court determined that the Commissioner is the sole decision-maker for an application for certification in the health sector.