Canadian Lawyer

24 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 9 w w w . c a n a d i a n l a w y e r m a g . c o m 3 % 10 % 6 % 6 % 19 % 0 % 16 % 6 % 6 % 3 % 0 % 3 % 3 % 9 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 31 % 10 % 10 % 19 % 6 % 13 % Less than $100,000 $100,001 to $125,000 $125,001 to $150,000 $150,001 to $175,000 $175,001 to $200,000 $200,001 to $225,000 $225,001 to $ 250,000 $250,001 to $275,000 Don't know Refuse to answer $100,001 to $125,000 $125,001 to $150,000 $150,001 to $175,000 $175,001 to $200,000 $200,001 to $225,000 $225,001 to $250,000 $250,001 to $275,000 $275,001 to $300,000 $300,001 to $400,000 $400,001 to $500,000 More than $500,000 Don't know Refuse to answer IN-HOUSE COUNSEL COMPENSATION (GC AT DIRECTOR LEVEL) IN-HOUSE COUNSEL COMPENSATION (GC AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL) (Sample size 32) (Sample size 31) WILL SALARIES INCREASE IN 2019? (Sample size 41) 47 % 30 % 23 % Yes No Not Sure C O M P E N S A T I O N S U R V E Y Benefit from this legal research tool focused on the scope and exercise of police powers Available risk-free for 30 days Online: store.thomsonreuters.ca Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 | In Toronto: 416-609-3800 Order # A20212-18-65203 $197 Annual subscription newsletter – Print Email delivery of electronic version available upon request A20212-18 Shipping and handling are extra. Price(s) subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. Get a comprehensive look at important jurisprudential developments relevant to the scope and exercise of police powers. Discover the latest trends in Police Powers • Explore key topics regarding powers of detention, arrest, and search and seizure in light of the Charter • Stay current with trends in police powers by accessing relevant articles and case commentaries • Get helpful case law, and learn about modifications to police procedure through timely legislative updates Also available on CriminalSource Police Powers Newsletter Justice Michelle Fuerst, Scott K. Fenton, and Susan Magotiaux © 2018 Thomson Reuters Canada Limited 00254GN-94253-NP JUSTICE MICHELLE FUERST, SCOTT FENTON AND SUSAN MAGOTIAUX SEPTEMBER 2018 | ISSUE 9 1. ODOUR OF FRESH MARIJUANA, PRIOR CONVICTION dence to permit the issuing justice to find reasonable and proba- INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO OBTAIN SEARCH ble grounds to believe there would be evidence of an offence. WARRANT As stated in R. v. Shiers , 2003 NSCA 138, 2003 CarswellNS 434, in the context of an application for a search warrant under Facts: Police were called to a rural, residential property in re- the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the question is sponse to a complaint about trespassing pigs. The investigation whether there was material in the ITO from which, the issuing shifted to encompass allegations of assault and threats. Police justice, drawing reasonable inferences, could have concluded attended at the home of the appellant to arrest him. The officers that there were reasonable grounds to believe that controlled spoke with a woman standing in the open doorway of the appel- substances, offence-related property, or any thing that would lant's garage. While speaking with her, the officers detected a afford evidence of an offence under the act, was at the location strong smell of fresh marihuana. The officers observed a closet specified in the warrant. in the garage emanating light. On entering the garage and open- ing the closet door, police discovered 42 marihuana seedlings. The strong smell of marihuana can be one of the grounds for The officers determined not to charge the appellant with any issuing a search warrant: R. v. Lao, 2013 ONCA 285, 2013 offences as a result of the presence of the seedlings as they CarswellOnt 5105. However, the smell of marihuana, on its own, recognized that the search may not have been lawful. Instead, may not be sufficient. In Lao, there was evidence of additional the officers applied for a warrant to search the appellant's hallmarks of a grow-op, including that the house appeared to be property. uninhabited, as the windows were covered and the shingles were peeling and the house consumed large quantities of elec- The officers advised the lead investigator that the smell in the tricity in a repeated cycle, consistent with high-intensity grow garage was "much stronger" than the odour emanating from the lights. See also R. v. Wiley , [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263, 1993 Car- seedlings, prompting the further investigation and application for swellBC 504, R. v. Grant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223, 1993 CarswellBC the search warrant. The Information to Obtain ("ITO") the search 1168, and R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, 1993 CarswellAlta warrant detailed the seizure of the 42 seedlings and information 94, in which the strong odour of marihuana was but one factor from police databases, including that in 2007, the appellant was for the issuing judge to consider, along with information obtained suspected of cultivating marihuana. The ITO also disclosed that from confidential informants and/or information with respect to in 2009, in a different jurisdiction, the appellant was again sus- electricity consumption at the property. pecting of running an indoor marihuana grow-op and in 2009, was convicted of possession. Accordingly, the ITO contained The trial judge erred in dismissing the appellant's application the statement that "it is evidence that [the appellant] has a long under s. 8 of the Charter as the ITO failed to disclose sufficient history involving illicit drugs, in particular marihuana, dating back evidence of a grow-op. The only information provided in addition nearly 20 years." to the odour of marihuana was dated information, mined from police databases. With respect to the appellant's 2009 convic- The execution of the search warrant lead to the seizure of eight tion for possession, there was no information that property asso- marihuana plants and some dried marihuana. At trial, the appel- ciated with a grow-op was seized along with the marihuana, nor lant alleged a breach of his rights under s. 8 of the Charter, in was there any information that the marihuana seized were that the ITO failed to disclose sufficient grounds for the issuance plants and not dried. Accordingly, the trial judge erred in failing of the warrant and sought the exclusion of the evidence seized to find a breach under s. 8 of the Charter. under s. 24(2). The trial judge disagreed, the appellant was convicted, and appealed. Turning to the test in R. v. Grant , 2009 SCC 32, 2009 Carswell- Ont 4104, the evidence ought to be excluded. The breach in this Held: Appeal allowed, acquittals entered. case was serious, given the defective grounds underpinning the As detailed in R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421, 1990 Cars- warrant. The officers involved over-valued the information avail- wellOnt 119, and R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, 2010 CarswellSask able via the database searches, without subjecting it to more 150, the ITO had to contain sufficient credible and reliable evi- careful scrutiny. Moreover, the conclusory statement with re- Publications Mail Agreement # 40065782 Untitled-8 1 2019-01-17 1:01 PM

• Cover