Guy Lafrance

The respondent was stopped for a traffic violation and subsequently arrested on an outstanding warrant for unpaid fines.

The arresting officers conducted a brief frisk search before placing him in the police cruiser.

The respondent filed informations against the officers for common assault, arguing the search was unlawful.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that at common law, police have the power to conduct a frisk search incident to a lawful arrest without needing reasonable and probable grounds, provided the search is for a valid objective and not conducted in an abusive manner.

The officers' actions were justified, and the acquittals were restored.

The appellant, Director of the Montreal Urban Community Police Department, sought an injunction to prohibit the respondent inquiry commissioner from publishing information regarding police informers and confidential investigation methods.

The Superior Court and Court of Appeal dismissed the motion.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the requested injunction was no longer necessary given the issuance of a writ of evocation in a related case, which controlled the use and publication of such evidence.

The appellant, a peace officer, refused to disclose the identity of a police informer to a provincial inquiry commission investigating police activities.

The commissioner ordered him to answer, and the appellant sought a writ of evocation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the commission's mandate was constitutionally valid, the commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by attempting to compel the disclosure of a police informer's identity.

The Court ruled that the police informer privilege is an absolute common law rule of public order that falls under federal jurisdiction over criminal law, and cannot be abrogated or altered by provincial legislation such as the Code of Civil Procedure.