The accused was charged with possession of marijuana contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and with failing to appear in court contrary to the Criminal Code.
The Crown's case for possession rested solely on the arresting officer's claim to have detected the smell of marijuana emanating from the accused's vehicle.
The court found the officer's testimony regarding the strength and permeability of the odour to be implausible and internally inconsistent.
The court concluded that the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds and violated the accused's Charter rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search.
The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
On the fail to appear charge, the court found that the Crown failed to prove the requisite mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, as the accused's testimony regarding his mistaken belief that his lawyer had rescheduled the trial date raised a reasonable doubt.
Both charges were dismissed.
