[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-295640-105":59,"doc-detail-295640-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","factum-of-the-appellant-ryan-paul-day-appellant-pursuant-to-rule-42-of-the-rules-of-the-supreme-court-of-canada","FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT - (RYAN PAUL DAY, APPELLANT) - Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada","","A factum for the Appellant, Ryan Paul Day, submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to Rule 42. The appeal addresses whether an arrest made without a warrant under s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code was lawful, focusing on both subjective reasonable and probable grounds and objective reasonable and probable grounds. The Trial Judge found Charter breaches and excluded evidence from a search incidental to an unlawful arrest, while the majority ordered a new trial.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/factum-of-the-appellant-ryan-paul-day-appellant-pursuant-to-rule-42-of-the-rules-of-the-supreme-court-of-canada/295640/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/factum-of-the-appellant-ryan-paul-day-appellant-pursuant-to-rule-42-of-the-rules-of-the-supreme-court-of-canada/295640.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Jordan Avery","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is the central issue in Ryan Paul Day’s appeal?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The appeal concerns whether an arrest without a warrant under s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code was lawful by both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What did the Trial Judge decide about the arrest and the evidence?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The Trial Judge found the arrest unlawful, concluded the Appellant’s s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights were violated, and excluded the marijuana and drug paraphernalia found as a result of a search incidental to an unlawful arrest.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Why did the Court of Appeal order a new trial?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The majority held the Trial Judge applied the wrong legal standard for subjective belief and failed to consider relevant evidence regarding the arresting officer’s subjective belief.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},295640,1789721158,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":41,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},1099523882367,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","| SCC File No.: 35822\u003Cbr>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA\u003Cbr>(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ALBERTA)\u003Cbr>BETWEEN:\u003Cbr>RYAN PAUL DAY\u003Cbr>APPELLANT\u003Cbr>(Appellant)\u003Cbr>-and\u003Cbr>HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN\u003Cbr>RESPONDENT\u003Cbr>(Respondent) |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT\u003Cbr>(RYAN PAUL DAY, APPELLANT)\u003Cbr>(Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) |  |\n| BRISTOW MOYSE LAWYERS\u003Cbr>Suite 301, Regatta Plaza II 84-86 Elizabeth Ave.\u003Cbr>St. John’s, NL A1A 1W7\u003Cbr>Kenneth J. Mahoney\u003Cbr>Tel.: (709) 722-3777\u003Cbr>Fax: (709) 722-0740\u003Cbr>[Email: ](Email: k.j.mahoney@nf.aibn.com)[k.j.mahoney@nf.aibn.com](Email: k.j.mahoney@nf.aibn.com)\u003Cbr>Counsel for the Appellant, Ryan Paul Day\u003Cbr>PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE OF CANADA\u003Cbr>Box 62 Atlantic Place 812-215 Water Street St. John's NL A1C 6C9\u003Cbr>Andrew O. Brown\u003Cbr>Tel.: 709-772-8056\u003Cbr>Fax: 709-772-8055\u003Cbr>Email: [andbrown@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca](andbrown@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca)\u003Cbr>Counsel for the Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen | SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP\u003Cbr>340 Gilmour St., Suite 100\u003Cbr>Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3\u003Cbr>Marie-France Major\u003Cbr>Tel. (613) 695-8855\u003Cbr>Fax (613) 695-8580\u003Cbr>Email: mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca\u003Cbr>Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Appellant, Ryan Paul Day\u003Cbr>DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC\u003Cbr>PROSECUTIONS OF CANADA\u003Cbr>160 Elgin Street, 12th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8\u003Cbr>Francois Lacasse\u003Cbr>Tel.: (613) 957-4770\u003Cbr>Fax: (613) 941-7865\u003Cbr>Email: flacasse@ppsc-[sppc.gc.ca](sppc.gc.ca)\u003Cbr>Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen |\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nPAGE  \nPART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................1  \nOverview of Facts Giving Rise to the Issues before this Court ..........................................1  \nCrown withdraws Search warrant evidence ............................................................3  \nThe Voir Dire evidence ...........................................................................................3  \nPART II – QUESTIONS IN ISSUE ............................................................................................8  \nPART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................8  \nWas the arrest lawful? .........................................................................................................8  \nStandard of Review on Appeals from Conviction ...............................................................9  \nInferences of Fact .............................................................................................................. 15  \nThe Court of Appeal Exceeded Jurisdiction ......................................................................20  \nConclusions of Subjective Grounds for arrest ..................................................................20  \nObjectively Justifiable? .....................................................................................................21  \nConclusion on the lawfulness of arrest and search incident to arrest ...............................25  \nPART IV–V – SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS AND ORDER SOUGHT ..................................26  \nPART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................27  \nPART VII – STATUTORY PROVISIONS ...............................................................................27  \nPART I-OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS  \nOverview ofFacts Giving Rise to the Issues before this Court  \n1. This appeal involves the lawfulness of an arrest without a warrant pursuant to s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The primary question at issue is whether the arresting officer subjectively had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the Appellant and secondly whether the officer objectively had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest as mandated by this Court in R. v. Storrey 1.  \n2. The Trial Judge found that the arrest of the Appellant was unlawful in that the arresting officer did not subjectively ","cbCaihS74OkjuWxR","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihS74OkjuWxR","pdf",175820,"English","# PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS\n## Overview of Facts Giving Rise to the Issues before this Court\n## Crown withdraws Search warrant evidence\n## The Voir Dire evidence\n# PART II – QUESTIONS IN ISSUE\n# PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT\n## Was the arrest lawful?\n## Standard of Review on Appeals from Conviction\n## Inferences of Fact\n## The Court of Appeal Exceeded Jurisdiction\n## Conclusions of Subjective Grounds for arrest\n## Objectively Justifiable?\n## Conclusion on the lawfulness of arrest and search incident to arrest\n# PART IV–V – SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS AND ORDER SOUGHT\n# PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n# PART VII – STATUTORY PROVISIONS","[{\"question\":\"What is the central issue in Ryan Paul Day’s appeal?\",\"answer\":\"The appeal concerns whether an arrest without a warrant under s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code was lawful by both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the Trial Judge decide about the arrest and the evidence?\",\"answer\":\"The Trial Judge found the arrest unlawful, concluded the Appellant’s s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights were violated, and excluded the marijuana and drug paraphernalia found as a result of a search incidental to an unlawful arrest.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the Court of Appeal order a new trial?\",\"answer\":\"The majority held the Trial Judge applied the wrong legal standard for subjective belief and failed to consider relevant evidence regarding the arresting officer’s subjective belief.\"}]","FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT - (RYAN PAUL DAY, APPELLANT) - Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada | PDF",76]