Rothstein JJ.

The appellant, a young person with a learning disability, was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The trial judge excluded his videotaped statement to police, finding the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he understood his rights under s. 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, holding the standard of proof for waiver was a balance of probabilities.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal.

The majority held that while the test for compliance with the informational requirement is objective, the Crown must prove compliance with all components of s. 146, including waiver, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The police accepted an invitation from a high school principal to bring sniffer dogs into the school to search for drugs.

The police had no specific knowledge of drugs present and conducted a random search while students were confined to classrooms.

A sniffer dog reacted to the respondent's unattended backpack in the gymnasium.

The police opened the backpack without a warrant and found illicit drugs.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the dog sniff constituted a search under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Court found that while police possess a common law power to use sniffer dogs based on reasonable suspicion, the search in this case was random and lacked reasonable suspicion, thus violating s. 8.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the acquittal was upheld.