Case information
Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.
35644
Samir Mohamed v. Her Majesty the Queen
(Alberta) (Criminal) (As of Right)
Docket
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
| Date | Proceeding | Filed By (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| 2014-10-28 | Appeal closed | |
| 2014-10-27 | Transcript received, 43 pages | |
| 2014-10-14 | Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties | |
| 2014-10-14 | Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties | |
| 2014-10-10 | Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), Filed in Court | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2014-10-10 | Appellant's condensed book, (Book Form), Filed in Court | Samir Mohamed |
| 2014-10-10 |
Judgment on the appeal rendered, Abe Ro Cro Mo Ka, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 1201-0093-A, 2013 ABCA 406, dated November 26, 2013, was heard on October 10, 2014, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: CROMWELL J. ? This appeal as of right comes to us on the dissent of Berger J.A. in the Alberta Court of Appeal. The question is whether the trial judge’s failure to identify a s. 8 breach in addition to the admitted breach of s. 10(b) justifies considering the trial judge’s s. 24(2) analysis afresh on appeal. In our view it does not. Assuming, without deciding, that there was a s. 8 breach on these facts, it is clear that the trial judge conducted her s. 24(2) analysis on the basis that the 10(b) breach resulted in the appellant producing the joint and lump of marihuana. As she put it, “While [the police officer] gave evidence that she would have arrested Mr. Mohamed if he had not got out of the car at her request, and I have found that she had grounds to do so, it is not a certainty that the exhibits of marihuana would have been discovered otherwise. The production of the joint and the lump of marihuana were clearly as a result of [the officer’s] prompting of Mr. Mohamed” (emphasis added). It is thus clear that the trial judge’s s. 24(2) analysis would not have been different had she found an independent s. 8 breach. In light of that conclusion, our view is that there is no basis to interfere on appeal with the trial judge’s weighing of the various factors under the s. 24(2) analysis. The appeal is dismissed. Dismissed |
|
| 2014-10-10 |
Hearing of the appeal, 2014-10-10, Abe Ro Cro Mo Ka Judgment rendered |
|
| 2014-10-06 | Correspondence received from, Moira Dillon by e-mail re: request for 4 reserved seats | Samir Mohamed |
| 2014-10-03 | Correspondence received from, (Letter Form), Request for 10 reserve seats | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2014-09-26 | Notice of appearance, Shawn Beaver and Alexandra Seaman will be appearing | Samir Mohamed |
| 2014-09-19 | Notice of appearance, James C. Martin and Louise Proulx will be appearing | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2014-09-05 | Notice of hearing sent to parties | |
| 2014-09-05 |
Appeal hearing scheduled, 2014-10-10 Judgment rendered |
|
| 2014-05-09 | Appeal perfected for hearing | |
| 2014-05-08 | Respondent's book of authorities, (Book Form), Completed on: 2014-05-08, (Electronic version filed on 2014-05-08) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2014-05-08 | Respondent's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2014-05-08, (Electronic version filed on 2014-05-08) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2014-03-13 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form) | Samir Mohamed |
| 2014-03-13 | Appellant's book of authorities, (Book Form), Completed on: 2014-03-14, (Electronic version filed on 2014-03-13) | Samir Mohamed |
| 2014-03-13 | Appellant's record, (Book Form), 2 volumes, Completed on: 2014-03-13, (Electronic version filed on 2014-03-13) | Samir Mohamed |
| 2014-03-13 | Appellant's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2014-03-13, (Electronic version filed on 2014-03-13) | Samir Mohamed |
| 2014-01-06 | Supplemental document, Corrigendum, Completed on: 2014-01-06 | Samir Mohamed |
| 2013-12-12 | Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Notice of appeal – As of right) | |
| 2013-12-04 | Notice of appeal, Corrigendum to CA judgment filed on 2014-01-06, Final CA order filed 2014-01-27, Completed on: 2013-12-04 | Samir Mohamed |
Parties
Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.
Main parties
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Mohamed, Samir | Appellant | Active |
v.
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Her Majesty the Queen | Respondent | Active |
Counsel
Party: Mohamed, Samir
Counsel
Alexandra Seaman
10158 - 103 Street
Suite 401
Edmonton, Alberta
T5J 0X6
Telephone: (780) 428-3100
FAX: (780) 428-3199
Email: sbeaver@beaverlaw.ca
Agent
900 - 275 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5H9
Telephone: (613) 691-1224
FAX: (613) 691-1338
Email: mdillon@supremelawgroup.ca
Party: Her Majesty the Queen
Counsel
606 4th Street S.W.
Suite 510
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 1T1
Telephone: (403) 299-3978
FAX: (403) 299-3966
Email: louise.proulx@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca
Agent
160 Elgin Street
12th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H8
Telephone: (613) 957-4770
FAX: (613) 941-7865
Email: francois.lacasse@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca
Summary
Keywords
None.
Summary
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.
Charter of Rights - Criminal law - Search and seizure - Cautions - Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant’s s. 10(b) Charter rights were not violated - Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellant’s s. 8 Charter rights were not violated - Whether the evidence should have been excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.
After being stopped for making an illegal u-turn, the appellant was arrested three times: first, for possession of a controlled substance, second, for possession for the purposes of trafficking, and third, for possession of a firearm. It was only after the appellant was arrested for the third time that the peace officer advised him of his s. 10(b) Charter rights. At trial, the appellant submitted that the peace officer had breached his rights under s. 8, 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter. The trial judge held that the peace officer had reasonable grounds to arrest the appellant for possession, and that the subsequent searches of his person, his jacket, and a tote bag located on the passenger seat, although warrantless, were otherwise authorized by law as searches incident to arrest and therefore did not violate the appellant’s s. 8 Charter rights. The trial judge also found that the appellant’s s. 10(a) Charter rights had not been violated, but that his s. 10(b) rights had been infringed because the peace officer was obligated to advise the appellant of those rights immediately upon his arrest. The appellant was convicted as charged. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. Berger J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal. In his view, the peace officer’s failure to advise the appellant of his s. 10(b) rights resulted in a violation of his s. 8 rights. Berger J.A. would have excluded the evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter and set aside the convictions.
Lower court rulings
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta
090179573 Q1
Appellant convicted of possession of a controlled substance, possession for the purposes of trafficking and possession of a firearm
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary)
1201-0093-A, 2013 ABCA 406
Appeal dismissed
Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal
The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available
Related links
Factums on appeal
The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available