R v Paterson

R. v. Paterson

2017 SCC 15
Supreme Court of Canada — Brown J. (majority), Moldaver J. (dissenting) | March 17, 2017

Background

In November 2007, RCMP officers responded to a 911 call from Brendan Paterson's girlfriend in Langley, BC. After determining no one needed assistance, the officers smelled marijuana when Paterson opened his apartment door. He admitted to having some marijuana "roaches" inside. The officers told him they would seize the roaches on a "no case" basis — meaning they'd take them but not charge him.

When Paterson tried to close the door, Constable Dykeman blocked it with his foot and followed him inside, claiming officer safety concerns and fear the roaches would be destroyed. Once inside, the officers observed a bulletproof vest, handgun, and what appeared to be ecstasy pills in plain view. They arrested Paterson and obtained a telewarrant to search the apartment, discovering significant quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, four loaded firearms, and over $30,000 in cash.

Issues

1. Whether "exigent circumstances" under s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act justified the warrantless entry
2. Whether evidence obtained from the warrantless search should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter

The Exigent Circumstances Test

The Supreme Court clarified that "exigent circumstances" means urgency — not mere convenience or practicality. Section 11(7) of the CDSA allows warrantless searches only when exigent circumstances make obtaining a warrant "impracticable." The Court explained this requires two elements: (1) urgency calling for immediate police action to preserve evidence, officer safety, or public safety, and (2) that taking time to get a warrant would pose serious risk to those objectives.

The majority found no genuine urgency here. The prospect of Paterson destroying roaches that police planned to destroy anyway — with no legal consequences to him — didn't approach the threshold. The police had practical alternatives: arrest Paterson and get a warrant, or seek his consent to enter. The Court rejected the "no case" nature of the seizure as legally irrelevant to the exigency analysis.

Charter Breach and Exclusion of Evidence

Having found the search violated s. 8 Charter rights, the Court applied the Grant framework for excluding evidence. The majority emphasized that warrantless entry into a residence — where people have the highest expectation of privacy — represents serious state misconduct, even when police act in good faith. The legal principles governing residential searches were well-established, making the "no case" intention legally insignificant.

The dissenting judges argued the legal uncertainty around "no case" seizures should reduce the seriousness of the breach, noting that both the trial judge and Court of Appeal had found the search lawful. However, the majority concluded that admitting evidence from an unjustified residential search would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, despite the reliability of the evidence and seriousness of the charges.

Key Takeaway

Police cannot rely on minor drug offences to justify major Charter violations through warrantless home searches.

This decision reinforces that residential searches require the highest justification, and that police good faith or administrative convenience cannot override Charter protections. The "exigent circumstances" exception demands genuine urgency, not mere investigative efficiency.