Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content





Citation : R. v. Whyte, 2011 SCC 49, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 364

Date : 20111020

Docket : 33965



Mark Whyte



Her Majesty The Queen




Coram : Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.


Reasons for Judgment :

(paras. 1 to 2)

Deschamps J. (Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. concurring)


R. v. Whyte, 2011 SCC 49, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 364


Mark Whyte                                                                                                     Appellant




Her Majesty The Queen                                                                               Respondent


Indexed as:  R. v. Whyte


2011 SCC 49


File No.:  33965.


2011:  October 20.


Present:  Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.


on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario


                    Constitutional law — Charter of Rights  — Enforcement — Exclusion of evidence — Conduct of police not constituting violation of ss. 8 and 9 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Evidence obtained pursuant to arrest and search improperly excluded at trial.

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Rosenberg, Cronk and Epstein JJ.A.), 2011 ONCA 24, 272 O.A.C. 317, 266 C.C.C. (3d) 5, 225 C.R.R. (2d) 223, [2011] O.J. No. 126 (QL), 2011 CarswellOnt 124, setting aside the acquittal entered by Ricchetti J., 2010 ONSC 979, 214 C.R.R. (2d) 71, [2010] O.J. No. 1295 (QL), 2010 CarswellOnt 1917, and entering a conviction. Appeal dismissed.

            Reid Rusonik and Nathan Gorham, for the appellant.


            Jennifer M. Woollcombe, for the respondent.

            The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]                              Deschamps J. ― We are of the view that the Court of Appeal did not err in finding that, as a matter of law,

                  [s]ince the police had reasonable grounds, subjective and objective, to believe that the occupants of the vehicle were in possession of illegal firearms, the arrest of the occupants of the vehicle and search as an incident of the arrest were lawful. There was no violation of the respondent’s rights under ss. 8  and 9  of the Charter  and the evidence should not have been excluded.

(2011 ONCA 24, 266 C.C.C. (3d) 5, at para. 32)

[2]                              The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.


Solicitors for the appellant:  Rusonik, O’Connor, Robbins, Ross, Gorham & Angelini, Toronto.

Solicitor for the respondent:  Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.





Save and organize search results from SCC and CanLII, get alerts.

Get started with Lexbox


Twitter Notices

Get real-time notices of new Supreme Court decisions via Twitter.

Follow Lexum on Twitter


For 20 years now, the Lexum site has been the main public source for Supreme Court decisions.