Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

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.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.