This paper critically evaluates the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decisions in the dog sniff cases: R. v. Kang-Brown and R. v. M. (A.). After briefly assessing the impact of these decisions on the law of search and seizure, the paper considers the significance of the disagreement between the majority and dissent in these cases on the appropriateness of using the ancillary powers doctrine to recognize new “common law” police powers. The paper explains the origins of that doctrine, its operation and the controversy that continues to surround its use as a source of police powers. On this fundamentally important issue, the paper offers a critique of both the majority and dissenting judgments, while also forecasting what may serve to finally resolve this lingering dispute.
"Sniffing Out the Ancillary Powers Implications of the Dog Sniff Cases."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.