R. v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50
| Jurisdiction | Federal Jurisdiction (Canada) |
| Judge | McLachlin, Beverley; LeBel, Louis; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard |
| Citation | 2013 SCC 50,[2013] 3 SCR 250,[2013] 12 WWR 209,[2013] SCJ No 50 (QL),JE 2013-1700,[2013] EXP 3114,AZ-51004479,423 Sask R 185,363 DLR (4th) 381 |
| Date | 27 September 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Docket Number | 34397 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
228 practice notes
-
Nguesso v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 879
...happen. As this Court only recently explained, the former is the language of "reasonable suspicion" ( R. v. MacKenzie , 2013 SCC 50, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250, at para. 74). The latter is the language of "reasonable and probable grounds". [183] I do not believe that the Court's statements in MacD......
-
R. v. Persaud, 2016 ONSC 8110
...grounds must be justified upon an objective measure of a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the officer: R. v. MacKenzie, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250, at paras. 62-3, 83; R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241, at pp. in other words, the ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ standard “consists of com......
-
R v Harrison,
...arts background compelling”). Police officers are trained professionals. See The Queen v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 49, ¶ 73; [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250, 281 per Moldaver, J. (“Common sense, flexibility, and practical everyday experience are the bywords, and they are to be applied thr......
-
R. v. D.N.S., (2016) 326 Man.R.(2d) 153 (CA)
...[para. 32]. R. v. Farrah (D.) (2011), 268 Man.R.(2d) 112; 520 W.A.C. 112; 2011 MBCA 49, refd to. [para. 32]. R. v. MacKenzie (B.C.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250; 448 N.R. 246; 423 Sask.R. 185; 588 W.A.C. 185; 2013 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 32]. R. v. Fenske (H.B.), [2015] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 37; 2015 MB......
Get Started for Free
186 cases
-
Nguesso v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 879
...happen. As this Court only recently explained, the former is the language of "reasonable suspicion" ( R. v. MacKenzie , 2013 SCC 50, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250, at para. 74). The latter is the language of "reasonable and probable grounds". [183] I do not believe that the Court's statements in MacD......
-
R. v. Persaud, 2016 ONSC 8110
...grounds must be justified upon an objective measure of a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the officer: R. v. MacKenzie, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250, at paras. 62-3, 83; R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241, at pp. in other words, the ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ standard “consists of com......
-
R v Harrison,
...arts background compelling”). Police officers are trained professionals. See The Queen v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 49, ¶ 73; [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250, 281 per Moldaver, J. (“Common sense, flexibility, and practical everyday experience are the bywords, and they are to be applied thr......
-
R. v. D.N.S., (2016) 326 Man.R.(2d) 153 (CA)
...[para. 32]. R. v. Farrah (D.) (2011), 268 Man.R.(2d) 112; 520 W.A.C. 112; 2011 MBCA 49, refd to. [para. 32]. R. v. MacKenzie (B.C.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250; 448 N.R. 246; 423 Sask.R. 185; 588 W.A.C. 185; 2013 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 32]. R. v. Fenske (H.B.), [2015] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 37; 2015 MB......
Get Started for Free
39 books & journal articles
-
Rights in the Criminal Process
...above note 75. 92 Tessling, above note 74. 93 R v Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, [2013] 3 SCR 220 at para 19. 94 R v MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50, [2013] 3 SCR 250. Rights in the Criminal Process 3) Surveillance The validity of the Criminal Code provisions authorizing judicial warrants for electronic surve......
-
Rights in the Criminal Process
...90 the Supreme Court found that a warrantless “perimeter search,” during which the police trespassed on the accused’s 83 R v MacKenzie , [2013] 3 SCR 250. 84 R v Finlay (1985), 23 DLR (4th) 532 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [1986] 1 SCR ix; R v Garofoli , [1990] 2 SCR 1421, 60 C......
-
Table of cases
...602, 676 R v Mack, 2012 ABCA 42, aff’d [2014] 3 SCR 3 .................................443, 446, 484 R v MacKenzie, [2013] 3 SCR 250 ...................................................................... 237 R v Mackenzie, 2015 ONCA 93 .............................................................
-
Table of cases, index and about the authors
...333 R v Mabior, [2012] 2 SCR 584, 2012 SCC 47....................................................... 119 R v MacKenzie, [2013] 3 SCR 250, 2013 SCC 50................................................ 330 R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine, [2003] 3 SCR 2003 SCC 74..........................................
Get Started for Free