A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has provided clarity on the limits of police power and the rights of individuals against arbitrary arrest1. The case involved Joshua McRae, who was arrested by Owen Sound police in early 2024. At issue was whether the police had enough evidence to arrest him or if they were simply acting on a hunch. Mr. McRae argued that his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated during the incident. He specifically claimed that he was detained arbitrarily and that the search of his person and belongings was unreasonable. However, after reviewing the evidence and the sequence of events leading up to the arrest, Justice R. Chown dismissed the application, finding that the police acted within the law.
The story began in February 2024 when the Owen Sound Police Service received tips from two separate confidential informers. These individuals reached out to the police claiming that Mr. McRae was actively selling drugs in the community. One informer told officers that Mr. McRae was selling fentanyl specifically around the St. Mary’s Hill area, which is located right next to Alexandra Park. This source claimed that Mr. McRae typically carried his drugs with him and talked frequently about his inventory to potential customers. The second informer provided similar details, noting that Mr. McRae was selling both fentanyl and methamphetamine. This second source also gave a specific address where Mr. McRae was allegedly seen and reiterated that he always had drugs on his person while moving around the city.
The police took these tips seriously because both informers had a history of providing reliable information. According to police records, the tips from these individuals had led to the arrest and charging of multiple people in the past. While it was not entirely clear if the informers had their own criminal records or if they were working together, the police noted that their motivations were described as being for both financial and moral reasons. The information they provided was a mix of first-hand observations and second-hand reports. This set the stage for a surveillance operation to see if the tips matched Mr. McRae’s actual behavior in the real world.
On the afternoon of Thursday, February 22, 2024, Detective Constable Hawke and other officers from the Owen Sound Police Service set up a surveillance post near Alexandra Park. They focused their attention on an address on Third Avenue East, which was very close to the park. The officers watched as the afternoon unfolded. At around 2:07 p.m., they saw Mr. McRae arrive at the location in a taxi. He was carrying a black duffle bag as he walked toward the back of a building. A few minutes later, he was seen with another man, Austin Shewfelt, in front of the same building before the officers briefly lost sight of them.
As the surveillance continued, the police observed a series of interactions that they found highly suspicious. At 3:36 p.m., a person known to the police as a drug user was seen leaving the area behind the building where Mr. McRae had gone. Later, just before 4:00 p.m., Mr. McRae and Mr. Shewfelt met with two more people. One was a woman in a black coat and the other was a man named Spencer Meunier, whom Detective Constable Hawke also recognized as a drug user. The group moved into Alexandra Park together. Within minutes, the woman and Mr. Meunier left the park and walked away.
The most significant observation for the officers happened shortly after 4:00 p.m. A woman in a white coat walked several blocks north and went directly to Mr. McRae and Mr. Shewfelt in the park. They were joined by another male who had also walked several blocks to reach them. The meeting was very brief. After only five minutes, the woman in the white coat and the man left the park and walked back in the direction they had come from. While the police did not see a physical hand-to-hand exchange of money or drugs, the nature of these short meetings with known drug users led Detective Constable Hawke to believe that drug trafficking was happening.
Based on these observations combined with the earlier tips from the informers, the officers moved in. They approached Mr. McRae and Mr. Shewfelt in Alexandra Park and placed them under arrest. During the subsequent search, the police found a variety of controlled substances and cash on Mr. McRae and inside the black duffle bag he had been carrying. They also seized two cell phones and three USB drives. Later, the police applied for a search warrant to look through the digital contents of those devices. Mr. McRae’s legal team argued that all of this evidence should be thrown out because the initial arrest was not justified.
The legal argument presented by Mr. McRae’s lawyer, Ms. Gamble, focused on the difference between “reasonable suspicion” and “reasonable and probable grounds.” In Canadian law, police need more than just a suspicion to make an arrest. They must have reasonable and probable grounds, which means there must be a reasonable probability that a crime is being committed. Ms. Gamble argued that the surveillance was a good start for an investigation but did not go far enough to justify an arrest. She pointed out that the investigation was very short, lasting only a few hours, and that no officer actually saw a drug transaction take place. She also questioned the reliability of the informers, noting that their criminal histories were unknown and that they might have exaggerated by saying Mr. McRae “always” had drugs on him.
Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the second informer had given a slightly incorrect address, mentioning Fourth Avenue instead of Third Avenue. They argued that because the police did not see any drugs until after the arrest, they could not use the discovery of those drugs to justify the arrest itself. This is a key principle in Canadian law known as the rule against after-the-fact reasoning. The court must look at only what the officers knew at the very moment they decided to make the arrest, not what they found out afterward.
Justice Chown carefully weighed these arguments against the legal standards set by the Supreme Court of Canada. One of the main cases cited was R. v. Beaver, which explains that an arrest requires both subjective and objective grounds. This means the officer must honestly believe a crime is happening, and a reasonable person in the officer’s shoes must also agree that the belief is justified. The judge noted that determining if enough grounds exist is not a scientific exercise but one that requires common sense and practical experience.
In his analysis, Justice Chown addressed the tips from the informers. He acknowledged that while the tips alone were not enough to arrest someone, they were a major piece of the puzzle. The informers had been reliable in the past, and their information was current. Even though one informer got the street name slightly wrong, the judge felt that misidentifying a street by a single block was an easy mistake to make and did not ruin the person’s credibility. The fact that two different people provided similar information at around the same time added weight to the police’s belief that Mr. McRae was involved in trafficking.
The judge then looked at the surveillance footage and notes. He noted that while there might be innocent explanations for meeting several people in a park on a cold February afternoon, those explanations became much less likely when the police already had credible tips about drug dealing in that exact location. The short duration of the meetings and the fact that some of the people involved were known drug users created a pattern that a reasonable officer would recognize as trafficking.
Justice Chown concluded that the combination of the detailed tips and the observations made by the officers on the day of the arrest created a solid legal foundation for the police to act. He stated that Detective Constable Hawke had reasonable and probable grounds to believe Mr. McRae was in possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Because the arrest was legal, the search that followed was also legal. This meant that the police did not violate Mr. McRae’s rights under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Charter.
As a result of this ruling, the evidence found during the arrest, including the drugs, cash, and digital devices, can be used in the ongoing legal proceedings against Mr. McRae. The judge’s decision emphasizes that the “totality of the circumstances” is what matters most in these cases. By looking at all the pieces together rather than each one in isolation, the court found that the police had crossed the threshold from mere suspicion into a justified belief. The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, allowing the case to move forward in the justice system.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the delicate balance the courts must maintain between protecting individual liberties and allowing the police to do their jobs effectively. While the Charter protects citizens from being stopped and searched for no reason, it also allows for police action when there is a credible and corroborated basis for it. In this instance, the court found that the Owen Sound Police Service had done their due diligence by following up on tips with active surveillance before making their move.
Read more crime stories here.
