Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- ns:r._v._boisclair_2012_nssc_151_canlii [2026/08/09 23:41] – victorzhou
+++ ns:r._v._boisclair_2012_nssc_151_canlii [2026/08/21 22:41] (current) – victorzhou
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Source: [[https://canlii.ca/t/fqzkt|CanLII]]
+----
 **__SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA__** \\
@@ Line 43: / Line 45: @@
 **The facts**
-[5] On October 14, 2010, officer Joe Pilpapil Joe Pilapil of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) received information from a confidential source of the RCMP. This source reported to officer Flanagan. Since officer Flanagan was not available on that day, he asked officer Pilapil to speak to the source and investigate. Officer Pilapil only had six months of experience with the criminal interdiction team when he was assigned to follow up in this case. The source told him that an individual named Mathieu Boislair would arrive in Truro on the same day on a Via Rail train coming from the province of Quebec. The information received also indicated that Mr. Boisclair had purchased a round-trip ticket in cash and that he would return the following day.
+[5] On October 14, 2010, officer Joe Pilapil of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) received information from a confidential source of the RCMP. This source reported to officer Flanagan. Since officer Flanagan was not available on that day, he asked officer Pilapil to speak to the source and investigate. Officer Pilapil only had six months of experience with the criminal interdiction team when he was assigned to follow up in this case. The source told him that an individual named Mathieu Boisclair would arrive in Truro on the same day on a Via Rail train coming from the province of Quebec. The information received also indicated that Mr. Boisclair had purchased a round-trip ticket in cash and that he would return the following day.
-[6] In the past, this source had provided information that lead to significant seizures of cocaine.
+[6] In the past, this source had provided information that led to significant seizures of cocaine.
 [7] The reliability of confidential sources was considered in //R. v. Debot//, 1989 CanLII 13 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 1140. At paragraph 53, Wilson J. wrote:
@@ Line 61: / Line 63: @@
 [11] Since the train was late, the team dispersed throughout the station with the sniffer dog and its handler staying away from the rest of the team at the edge of the platform. The handler and their dog were tens of metres away from officer Pilapil.
-[12] After the train's arrival, officer Pilapil noticed that a man who was staying away from the other passengers. He watched the man head towards the station building before stopping on the platform when he saw a police officer in uniform with a dog. At this moment, the man lit a cigarette. There was a luggage trolley on the platform.
+[12] After the train's arrival, officer Pilapil noticed a man who was staying away from the other passengers. He watched the man head towards the station building before stopping on the platform when he saw a police officer in uniform with a dog. At this moment, the man lit a cigarette. There was a luggage trolley on the platform.
 [13] Officer Pilapil noticed that the man was nervous. The man was trembling, shaking his hands and smoked his cigarette nervously while looking around himself and watching the dog handler officer. Officer Pilapil approached the man and identified himself as a police officer. The man wore a backpack on his shoulders. The officer asked for a piece of identification.
@@ Line 67: / Line 69: @@
 [14] The man identified himself as Mathieu Boisclair. He continued to nervously smoke his cigarette butt, which only had its filter remaining. The officer asked him where he was going and Mr. Boisclair answered Sydney. Officer Pilapil indicated to Mr. Boisclair that his work included asking travellers questions and asked him whether he was transporting contraband. Mr. Boisclair answered that he was not. Mr. Boisclair continued to smoke his cigarette butt which was now unlit.
-[15] Mr. Boisclair stated that he afraid to throw his cigarette on the ground since one of his friends received a fine for doing so in a public place but I do not find this explanation sincere.
+[15] Mr. Boisclair stated that he was afraid to throw his cigarette on the ground since one of his friends received a fine for doing so in a public place but I do not find this explanation sincere.
 [16] Even though Mr. Boisclair's mother tongue seemed to be French, officer Pilapil stated that Mr. Boisclair understood English and that they could communicate with each other in English. Later on, Mr. Boisclair was interviewed by officer Moreau and also had a conversation with officer Keddy, which show that Mr. Boisclair understands English and speaks it, even if he is unsure about specific words from time to time.
@@ Line 77: / Line 79: @@
 [19] None of the officers present at the station spoke French. Speaking in English, officer Keddy read the rights to a lawyer to Mr. Boisclair and, while showing him the back of the card, had him read the French version of the words that she had just read. Once at the police station, Mr. Boisclair spoke to a French-speaking lawyer in private.
-[20] Office Hurlburt began to search Mr. Boisclair's backpack. In the backpack, he found a brick covered in plastic and black electric tape. This brick contained one kilogram of cocaine. He also found a small quantity of hashish. After the search of the backpack, there remained Mr. Boisclair's suitcase on the luggage cart. The dog sniffed several suitcases which were on the cart and it signalled that there were controlled substances inside Mr. Boisclair's suitcase. The claimant indicated that it was possible that the suitcase contained marijuana. The officers found 238 grams of marijuana in the suitcase along with 48 blue pills, later identified as "Nexus" (ecstasy) after analysis, which is a controlled substance pursuant to Schedule III of the //Controlled Drugs and Substances Act//.
+[20] Officer Hurlburt began to search Mr. Boisclair's backpack. In the backpack, he found a brick covered in plastic and black electric tape. This brick contained one kilogram of cocaine. He also found a small quantity of hashish. After the search of the backpack, there remained Mr. Boisclair's suitcase on the luggage cart. The dog sniffed several suitcases which were on the cart and it signalled that there were controlled substances inside Mr. Boisclair's suitcase. The claimant indicated that it was possible that the suitcase contained marijuana. The officers found 238 grams of marijuana in the suitcase along with 48 blue pills, later identified as "Nexus" (ecstasy) after analysis, which is a controlled substance pursuant to Schedule III of the //Controlled Drugs and Substances Act//.
 [21] Mr. Boisclair had the opportunity to contact a French-speaking lawyer once he arrived at the police station before giving a statement to officer Moreau, a francophone officer.
@@ Line 141: / Line 143: @@
 [37] Even though a search without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable, it may be justified in certain circumstances. The search or warrant must be authorized by law. This requirement may not be satisfied if one of the following conditions is not met. First, the State agent who conducts the search must be able to indicate the law or common law rule which authorizes the search. Second, the search must be conducted while following procedural and substantive requirements prescribed by law. Third, the extent of the search must be limited to the area or objects which are authorized by law.
-[38] In //R. v. Kang-Brown// and //R. v. AM// 2008 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 456 and 569, having considered the use of sniffer dogs, the Supreme Court created a a new category of searches authorized by law called the "common law rule", in which the existence of a reasonable suspicion is a determining criterion.
+[38] In //R. v. Kang-Brown// and //R. v. AM// 2008 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 456 and 569, having considered the use of sniffer dogs, the Supreme Court created a new category of searches authorized by law called the "common law rule", in which the existence of a reasonable suspicion is a determining criterion.
 [39] In //Kang-Brown//, five of nine judges participated in the decision that determined that the common law recognized that the police power to effectuate searches or warrants with the aid of a sniffer dog based on a standard of reasonable suspicion was consistent with the //Charter//.
-[40] Binnie J. indicated that "This //Charter// standard of 'reasonable suspicion' is based, as stated, on the minimal intrusiveness, narrowly targeted objective and high accuracy of 'sniffs' by specifically trained dogs". He clarified in pararaph 75:
+[40] Binnie J. indicated that "This //Charter// standard of 'reasonable suspicion' is based, as stated, on the minimal intrusiveness, narrowly targeted objective and high accuracy of 'sniffs' by specifically trained dogs". He clarified in paragraph 75:
 <blockquote>
@@ Line 167: / Line 169: @@
 [42] The justification to detain an individual is considered in the totality of the circumstances.
-[43] In this case, officer Pilapil relied on information from a confidential source which was trustworthy. He was looking for an an individual named Mathieu Boisclair who was travelling on a train from Quebec. The officer went to the station. He saw a visibly-agitated man who was nervously smoking a cigarette. The officer identified himself as a police officer before asking him some questions. The man identified himself as Mathieu Boisclair. After noticing a police officer accompanied by a sniffer dog, Mr. Boisclair become more visibly agitated. He fiddled with an unlit butt. Mr. Boisclair had travelled from Quebec to Nova Scotia by train, which took nearly the whole day. Mr. Boisclair indicated that he would be continuing to Sydney, in Cape Breton, located several hours away from Truro. Officer Pilapil knew that Mr. Boisclair planned to return to Quebec the following day and that he had purchased his ticket using cash.
+[43] In this case, officer Pilapil relied on information from a confidential source which was trustworthy. He was looking for an individual named Mathieu Boisclair who was travelling on a train from Quebec. The officer went to the station. He saw a visibly-agitated man who was nervously smoking a cigarette. The officer identified himself as a police officer before asking him some questions. The man identified himself as Mathieu Boisclair. After noticing a police officer accompanied by a sniffer dog, Mr. Boisclair became more visibly agitated. He fiddled with an unlit butt. Mr. Boisclair had travelled from Quebec to Nova Scotia by train, which took nearly the whole day. Mr. Boisclair indicated that he would be continuing to Sydney, in Cape Breton, located several hours away from Truro. Officer Pilapil knew that Mr. Boisclair planned to return to Quebec the following day and that he had purchased his ticket using cash.
-[44] The totality of the evidence in this matter establishes that officer Pilapil had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Boisclair was in possession of controlled substances as defined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The search of Mr. Boisclair's backpack and suitcase constituted a legitimate exercise of police powers under the common law. Thus there was no infringement of his rights guaranteed by the //Charter//. Consequently, the question of whether the evidence should be excluded does not arise. In this case, the evidence, that being the controlled substances found in Mr. Boisclair's backpack and suitecase, is admissible.
+[44] The totality of the evidence in this matter establishes that officer Pilapil had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Boisclair was in possession of controlled substances as defined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The search of Mr. Boisclair's backpack and suitcase constituted a legitimate exercise of police powers under the common law. Thus there was no infringement of his rights guaranteed by the //Charter//. Consequently, the question of whether the evidence should be excluded does not arise. In this case, the evidence, that being the controlled substances found in Mr. Boisclair's backpack and suitcase, is admissible.
 [45] Even if my conclusions on the constitutional issues and the admissibility of the evidence are overturned, the evidence shows that officer Pilapil acted entirely in good faith. The officer asked Mr. Boisclair whether he consented to the sniffer dog's search of his bag. Mr. Boisclair acquiesced. Having joined the interdiction team less than six months ago, officer Pilapil had not received directives on the procedure to obtain valid consent. He acted based on the affirmative response that Mr. Boisclair gave.