Digest: R v Pavlik, 2018 SKPC 4

• Date: January 24, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKPC 4

Docket Number: 39125624 , PC17093

Court: Provincial Court

Date: 2018-01-24

Judges:

• Schiefner

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Defences � Charter of Rights Section 8, Section 9
• Constitutional Law � Charter of Rights, Section 10 � Voluntary Statements

Digest: The police received a tip from a confidential informant and arrested the accused and his girlfriend for possession for the purpose of trafficking. Upon arrest, the police searched the girlfriend�s car and found a loaded sawed-off shotgun. The accused was charged by indictment with weapons offences and possession of a controlled substance. On voir dire, the issues before the court were: 1) whether the arrest was contrary to s. 9 of the Charter; 2) whether the search violated s. 8 of the Charter; and 3) whether the accused�s admission to owning the shotgun was voluntary.
HELD: The court dismissed the Charter application. 1) The police had reasonable grounds to arrest the accused. The tip received by the police was precise as to time, location and persons and was sufficiently detailed to be credible. The source information was received by one officer and communicated to others who, as was their practice to maintain confidentiality of another officer�s sources, did not ask the name, history or possible motive of the source. The police corroborated all neutral aspects of the tip and those were sufficient to establish that the source was acquainted with the target and created a reasonable inference that he was privy to the criminal activity being reported. It was reasonable and operationally necessary for police to rely upon information provided by fellow officers during the exigencies of an active investigation. 2) There was no evidence that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to his girlfriend�s car. 3) The accused�s statements were voluntary. There was no evidence of threats or promises made by the officer and no police trickery was used. The interview was not oppressive, and the accused had a clear operating mind when he made the statements.

Federal Statutes Considered:

• Charter of Rights, s 8
• Charter of Rights, s 9
• Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, s 4(1)
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 86(1)
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 88(1)
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 94(1)
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 95(1)(a)
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 109
• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s...