Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Meiz, 2014 ONCA 209

Date: 20140320

Docket: C55769

Before: Doherty, Laskin and Feldman JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Haytham Ayman Meiz

Appellant

Counsel:

Tyler Botten, for the appellant

Moiz Rahman and Moray Welch, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: March 17, 2014

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Toscano Roccamo of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 30, 2011.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] As ably argued by counsel for the appellant, this appeal turns on the lawfulness and, therefore, the constitutionality of the arrest that took place at the door to the appellant’s apartment. The applicable law is not in dispute: see R. v. Storrey, 1990 CanLII 125 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; and the trial judge’s factual findings are not challenged.

[2] Despite some confusion in the trial judge’s terminology between the grounds for detention and the grounds for arrest, the findings of fact made by the trial judge provided ample grounds for the appellant’s arrest. Those findings included:

• the marihuana smoke coming from the room when the police questioned the appellant at the door;
• the appellant’s suspicious conduct at the door when being questioned by the police; and
• the items (a weigh scale, white powder on the weigh scale, and a pill beside the weigh scale) observed on the shelf in the appellant’s room by the officer when he was standing at the door.

[3] This constellation of facts, viewed reasonably and cumulatively by someone with the experience of the police officer in question, provided ample grounds for the appellant’s arrest.

[4] As the arrest was lawful and, therefore, not a breach of s. 9, the subsequent conduct of the police, although clearly improper, could not impact on the admissibility of the evidence in question. We stress that we come to this conclusion in the circumstances of this case.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.

“Doherty J.A.”

“John Laskin J.A.”

“K. Feldman J.A.”