2 total
Statutory immunity from charge and conviction for simple possession implicitly includes immunity from arrest.
The appellant Crown appealed from a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal which quashed the respondent's convictions for firearms offences and possession of identity documents, holding that his arrest for simple possession of a controlled substance was unlawful because s. 4.1(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act — the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act exemption — precluded charge and conviction and, by necessary implication, arrest for that offence.
The majority held that Parliament's purpose in enacting s. 4.1(2) was to save lives by removing disincentives to calling emergency services at the scene of a drug overdose, and that immunity from arrest is necessarily implied by the immunity from charge and conviction, since arrest and the searches incident to it would otherwise substantially undermine that legislative purpose.
The majority further held that the s. 4.1(2) immunity does not affect other existing police powers at the scene of an overdose, and that the evidence discovered through a search incident to the unlawful arrest must be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
The dissent concluded that the text, context, and purpose of s. 4.1(2) limit the exemption to charge and conviction only, and that the police did not infringe ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter.
Sexual assault conviction upheld; trial judge's reasons and credibility assessment were sufficient.
The appellant was convicted of sexual assault at trial and appealed on the basis that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding factual findings about the complainant's evidence and erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of that evidence.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal majority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction, with one justice dissenting in favour of a new trial.
On further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, counsel for the appellant raised the same grounds of insufficient reasons and errors in law in assessing the complainant's evidence.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, substantially adopting the reasoning of the majority of the Court of Appeal.
