Blog

Disclaimer: These posts are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have legal questions about your specific situation, get in touch with our office or another lawyer you trust.

Understanding Your Rights: What R. v. Mann Teaches Us About Police Detentions and Pat-Down Searches

Knowledge is empowerment: especially when it comes to understanding your rights during interactions with police. One case that continues to shape the limits of police powers in Canada is the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2004 decision R. v. Mann.

Although the case is now over 20 years old, it remains one of the most important rulings on investigative detentions and pat-down searches. It offers important guidance for anyone, particularly Indigenous, Northern, and marginalized community members, who may face police stops and searches.

This decision reaffirms a core message:
Police powers have limits, and your Charter rights do not disappear during a detention.

What Happened in R. v. Mann

Police in Winnipeg were responding to a break-and-enter call when they saw a man who matched the suspect description. Officers detained him and conducted a pat-down search meant to check for weapons.

During the pat-down, the officer felt a soft object in Mann’s pocket. Instead of stopping or asking questions, the officer reached into the pocket and retrieved a bag of marijuana, later finding more substances.

Mann was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking. But the real issue became this:

Did the police go too far?

The Supreme Court’s Answer: Yes.

The Supreme Court agreed that the police were justified in detaining Mann and performing a basic pat-down for safety. But the moment the officer reached into the pocket, the purpose of the search changed.

It was no longer about safety.
It became a search for evidence… something officers are not allowed to do during an investigative detention.

This pocket search violated Mann’s section 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Because the breach was serious, the Court excluded the evidence entirely, and Mann’s acquittal was restored.

What This Means for You: Your Rights in a Police Detention

The Supreme Court’s decision sets out clear boundaries that still apply today:

1. Police can only detain you if they have “reasonable grounds to suspect.”

A hunch is not enough. There must be a connection between you and a specific crime.

2. A protective search must stay within strict limits.

Officers may do a pat-down to check for weapons if they reasonably believe safety is at risk.

3. Police can only go in your pockets during a detention if they reasonably believe it to be necessary for safety - searching for evidence is not allowed.

Unless you are under arrest, seaching inside pockets, bags, jackets, or clothing is not allowed.

4. Privacy matters, even during police contact.

Your pockets and personal belongings carry a high expectation of privacy. The Court recognized that.

5. Evidence found through an unlawful search can be thrown out.

If police overstep their authority, the courts can exclude improperly obtained evidence.

Why This Decision Still Matters: Especially for Indigenous and Northern Communities

At Perrie Law, cases like R. v. Mann speak directly to the realities many of our clients face:

Frequent and intrusive police contact
Unequal treatment during stops
Confusion about what police can legally do
Fear of pushing back against authority

This case reinforces that police powers are not unlimited, and that the courts have a responsibility to check those powers when they infringe on the rights of the public, particularly those who have historically been over-policed.

Understanding the limits of police authority is an essential part of building safer, stronger communities.

Our Commitment

Perrie Law is committed to protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and all community members across the North and beyond. Whether you’re navigating police contact, advocating for your rights, or withstanding pressure within an unequal system, you deserve fairness, clarity, and dignity.

If you have questions about your rights during police encounters or feel that your rights were violated, we’re here to help.

Empowerment begins with understanding.

Let’s keep building that together.

Nunavut Court of Appeal Weighs Constitutional Rights of Inuit Hunters

The Nunavut Court of Appeal recently addressed an important legal question: Should mandatory driving prohibitions apply to Inuit sustenance hunters in Nunavut, even when such bans threaten their right to hunt and support their communities? This question comes from the case "R v Qiyuk, 2025 NUCA 11," where three Inuit applicants faced a one-year driving ban after pleading guilty to impaired driving offences.

The Heart of the Case

The applicants argued that the driving ban would prevent them from hunting, which is essential for the survival of their families and communities. They claimed that the law, as applied, breaches several constitutional protections, including their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Although the Crown conceded that the ban constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" for these hunters, the lower court judge disagreed and upheld the mandatory driving prohibition. The applicants then appealed, raising several legal issues such as misapprehension of facts, liberty interests, treatment or punishment, and potential discrimination against Inuit sustenance hunters.

Questions of National Importance

Justice Tamara Friesen’s decision found that the appeal involved serious questions of law, specifically about how mandatory driving prohibitions interact with the Charter when they affect Indigenous rights to hunt for food and cultural purposes. The Court acknowledged that the outcome of this case could set precedent not only in Nunavut but across Canada.

The application for permission to appeal was granted. Furthermore, the Court allowed the applicants to stay their driving bans pending the appeal's outcome, citing no prior convictions and no opposition from the Crown.

What Comes Next?

This appeal is critical for Inuit communities reliant on hunting for sustenance. It addresses the intersection of public safety laws, constitutional rights, and Indigenous practices. The Nunavut Court of Appeal’s upcoming review may influence how similar cases are decided in the future, balancing government regulations with the very real needs of Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Final Thoughts

The "R v Qiyuk" decision demonstrates how legal issues in remote and northern communities often raise unique questions about fairness, culture, and constitutional protections. This case reminds us that legal rules should not overlook the realities of those most affected by them, especially when they concern fundamental ways of life.

Sources

https://www.canlii.org/

Building the Future: How the Nunavut Agreement Renewal Strengthens Inuit Governance

In March 2025, a major step was taken for Inuit governance in Nunavut: the Government of Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), and the Government of Nunavut signed the renewed Implementation Contract under the Nunavut Agreement. This marks the first renewal of the contract in over ten years since the Agreement was signed in 1993.

What the Contract Does

Commits $1.5 billion over 10 years (2024-2034), with an additional $77.6 million per year ongoing (Nunatsiaq News, 2025).
More than $600 million of the funds are earmarked for Inuit employment and training (Nunatsiaq News, 2025).
$50 million is set aside for the Nunavut Inuit Heritage Centre (Nunatsiaq News, 2025).
Funding also supports governance, environmental, and land-use institutions: NTI, Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Planning Commission, Nunavut Impact Review Board, Nunavut Water Board, Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, and Hunters & Trappers Organizations.

Why It Matters

This renewed agreement is not just about money—it’s about honoring treaty obligations, strengthening Inuit decision-making, and building capacity in communities. Key points:

Stable long-term funding means communities and Inuit organizations can plan ahead with more certainty.
Employment & training focus opens paths for Inuit people to take on leadership roles, work in government positions, and have a stronger role in governing their lands.
The Heritage Centre helps protect culture, language, history—elements essential to identity and self-determination.
Supporting governance institutions ensures Inuit perspectives are part of decisions about land, the environment, wildlife, and resource management.

Connection to Perrie Law

At Perrie Law, we are deeply committed to supporting Indigenous governance, defending rights, and ensuring access to justice. This renewed Implementation Contract directly aligns with our work:

We help clients navigate the overlapping systems—treaty, land claims, traditional governance—and ensure legal protection of rights promised under the Nunavut Agreement.
As more decision-making power shifts to Inuit bodies and more resources become available locally, people will need support to make sure programs and funding live up to their promises.
We also strive to ensure that people are included—Elders, youth, remote communities—so that the community-led vision of self-determination becomes real.

Looking Forward

The renewal of the Implementation Contract is a milestone. It offers hope—but also responsibility. Communities, organizations, and individuals must stay engaged, watch how the funding flows, ask questions, and make sure Inuit voices remain central in the path forward.

Perrie Law stands ready to walk alongside you through these changes—ensuring that rights are defended, voices are heard, and governance reflects Inuit priorities and knowledge.

Sources

“Historic $1.5B deal marks first renewal of Nunavut Agreement since 1993.” Nunatsiaq News, March 2025. Read here

Privacy and Admissibility of Evidence

A new case about privacy and admissibility of evidence in sexual assault cases in Nunavut!

In the recent case of R v NN, 2024 NUCJ 36, the Nunavut Court of Justice tackled some important questions about what kind of evidence can be used in a sexual assault trial.

The case involved text messages, photos, and Snapchat conversations, and whether they could be considered private "records" - or if they could be used to unfairly influence the jury.

These are the Key takeaways from this new decision:

Protecting privacy: The Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the complainant's privacy and preventing the use of evidence that could perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
Balancing rights: The Court carefully weighed the defendant's right to a fair trial against the need to protect the complainant's privacy and dignity.
Context matters: Whether a message or photo is considered private depends on the specific circumstances and the nature of the information shared.

Police at your door?

It can be unsettling when the police show up at your home. Here's what you need to know to protect yourself and understand your rights:

Do NOT open the door automatically. You have the right to remain silent and not let them in.
Ask if they have a warrant. If they say they do, ask to see it through the window or slip it under the door. Make sure it has the correct address and a judge's signature.
If they don't have a warrant, you can say:
1. "I do not consent to you entering my home."
2. "I do not want to talk to you without a lawyer present."
3. "I will not open my door for you."
If they insist on coming in without a warrant, DO NOT physically resist. Step aside but clearly say you do not consent to them coming in.
If you are arrested, stay calm and ask for a lawyer immediately. DO NOT answer any questions or give the police any information.

Important notes:

Be polite and cooperative, but firm in telling them your rights.
Do not answer any questions or engage in conversation without a lawyer.
Contact a lawyer as soon as possible.

Remember: You have the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, and the right to refuse entry to your home without a warrant.

Be Gay/Do Crime

The phrase "be gay, do crime" is a popular slogan that celebrates rebellion and subversion in queer communities, often as a response to historical and ongoing marginalization. It's a playful, tongue-in-cheek way of embracing non-confirmity and challenging societal norms that have excluded and criminalized 2SLGBTQ+ people. The slogan reflects a sense of empowerment, pride, and resistance against systems that have historically deemed queerness itself as "deviant" and criminal. When being our true, authentic selves is criminalized, it calls to question other pieces of the legal framework imposed on us by the state.

Rather than promoting literal criminal activity, "be gay, do crime" symbolizes resistance to oppression, advocating for self-expression and personal freedom in the face of restrictive conventions.

Law is not often a place queer folks feel safe. With members of the bar scoffing at stating their own pronouns in court and dead names published on public dockets, queer clients deserve representation they can feel safe navigating the system with.

While silly and playful, messaging that resonates with and tells queer clients that they are welcome to be themselves when accessing legal counsel is important. Especially now when trans rights are taking blow after blow across the country. You can feel safe to be yourself while working with anyone at Perrie Law.

Page updated

Report abuse