John L. MacDougall

The appellant appealed as of right from a decision of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division, which set aside his acquittal for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that there were reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant and that exigent circumstances authorized the police to conduct a search under s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act.

The Court concluded the search was conducted reasonably and did not violate s. 8 of the Charter.

The accused was observed allegedly driving while disqualified.

A police officer stopped him and, suspecting alcohol consumption, demanded a breath sample under s. 238(2) of the Criminal Code.

The officer did not have an A.L.E.R.T. device, which arrived 30 minutes later.

The accused refused to provide a sample and was charged with refusing a demand and driving while disqualified.

He was not informed of his right to counsel.

The trial judge acquitted him on both charges, excluding the refusal evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown appealed only the refusal acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the demand was not made 'forthwith' as required by s. 238(2), meaning the accused was under no obligation to comply.

Furthermore, the accused's s. 10(b) rights were violated during the 30-minute detention.

Finally, the Crown was estopped from appealing the refusal acquittal because the unappealed acquittal for driving while disqualified constituted a conclusive finding that the accused was not driving.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder as a party to the offence under the constructive murder provisions of the Criminal Code, after his brother beat a homeowner to death during a break and enter.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the constructive murder provision violated the Charter.

Applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Vaillancourt, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the constructive murder provision was inoperative as it violated the Charter.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.