The accused was arrested without warrant days after an alleged sexual assault and made an incriminating videotaped statement during police interrogation.
At trial, the judge refused to hold a voir dire on the lawfulness of the arrest under s. 495(2) of the Criminal Code, concluding that s. 495(3) deemed the arrest lawful so long as s. 495(1) grounds existed.
The Supreme Court held that s. 495(2) imposes mandatory limits on warrantless arrest powers and that an arrest contrary to those limits may be unlawful and arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter.
Section 495(3) only protects peace officers from liability in proceedings against them and does not bar an accused from challenging the legality of the arrest in their own criminal trial.
The refusal to hold a voir dire was an error of law requiring a new trial.
