Evidence must be considered cumulatively and contextually: Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Law360 Canada (October 21, 2026, 11:57 AM EDT) --

John L. Hill

A police officer investigating suspected drug trafficking does not have to eliminate every innocent explanation for a suspect’s behaviour before making an arrest. But an officer’s training and experience alone cannot justify depriving someone of liberty.

The challenge is determining when information crosses the line from reasonable suspicion, which may justify an investigative detention, to reasonable grounds to believe, which are required for a warrantless arrest. In a judgment involving the seizure of 90 kilograms of methamphetamine and 65 kilograms of cocaine, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of assessing all the circumstances together rather than examining each piece of evidence in isolation.

The court allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside the acquittals of Parminder Singh and Sahilpreet Grewal, and ordered a new trial (R. v. Singh, 2026 SKCA 90).

The case arose from an RCMP investigation known as Project Intuitive. In February 2023, border officers seized 300 kilograms of methamphetamine from a commercial truck entering Canada at Coutts, Alta. Border officers intercepted a second shipment containing 245 kilograms in April.

Investigators came to believe Singh helped facilitate the shipments. Police obtained a warrant under s. 492.1 of the Criminal Code to track his mobile phone.

On June 1, 2023, tracking information showed that Singh’s phone had travelled from Edmonton to Winnipeg overnight, remained there for approximately four hours and then started back west. Staff Sgt. Ryan Smart, who was leading the investigation, suspected Singh might be transporting drugs.

Smart contacted RCMP Cpl. Alexandros Giannoulis, an experienced officer trained in detecting drug transportation. He provided information connecting Singh to the investigation, including the earlier seizures, the tracking warrant and the unusual journey. Smart withheld some details to protect the broader investigation.

Giannoulis stopped the vehicle on Highway 16 near Maidstone, Sask., initially addressing a suspected window-tint violation.

During the stop, he observed that both occupants appeared unusually nervous. Grewal gave an account of their route that the officer regarded as deliberately deceptive because tracking information showed they had come from Winnipeg. A blanket covered an object on the rear seat, and Grewal made a comment that seemed to distance himself from the vehicle. After the men were detained for investigation, another officer reported Singh’s extreme nervousness and an unanswered call from a number identified as “no caller ID.”

Considering these observations alongside the intelligence received and his knowledge of drug-trafficking practices, Giannoulis concluded he had reasonable grounds to believe the men possessed controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking. A subsequent search uncovered the drugs.

Singh and Grewal challenged the police conduct under ss. 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protect against unreasonable search or seizure and arbitrary detention.

The trial judge accepted that the initial traffic stop was lawful and that the officers had reasonable grounds to detain the men for investigation. He also found no breach of their rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b), concerning notification of the reasons for detention and access to counsel.

The decisive issue was the arrest. The trial judge concluded Giannoulis’s belief that the men were transporting drugs was not objectively reasonable. He therefore found the arrests unlawful under s. 9 and the ensuing vehicle search unreasonable under s. 8.

Applying R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework for excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the trial judge excluded the drugs. Without that evidence, the Crown could not prove the charges, and both men were acquitted.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge’s legal assessment was incorrect. Under s. 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, a warrantless arrest requires the officer to subjectively believe that the person has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence, and that belief must be objectively reasonable.

In R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241, the Supreme Court explained this two-part test. It was reaffirmed in R. v. Zacharias, 2023 SCC 30. The Court of Appeal also relied on R. v. Tim, 2022 SCC 12 and R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54.

Reasonable grounds to believe demand more than reasonable suspicion. Suspicion concerns the possibility of criminal activity; belief requires a reasonable basis for finding a probability of criminal activity. As the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal explained in R. v. Santos, 2022 SKCA 50 and R. v. Laird, 2024 SKCA 61, the assessment is qualitative, not a checklist of individual indicators.

The court stressed that the evidence must be considered cumulatively and contextually. In R. v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50, the Supreme Court recognized that police training may give significance to observations that appear unremarkable to others, while cautioning that experience does not replace objective scrutiny.

Here, the journey from Edmonton to Winnipeg and back covered approximately 2,600 kilometres, with only a brief stop in Winnipeg. Given the officer’s knowledge of drug-trafficking routes and practices, this was significant.

The tracking warrant also mattered. Although such a warrant requires reasonable grounds to suspect that tracking will assist an investigation, rather than grounds to believe the subject committed an offence, it had received judicial authorization. In the context of the investigation and the two substantial drug seizures, it provided credible information connecting Singh to an active investigation.

The court also considered the apparently deceptive explanation of the journey, the occupants’ nervousness, the covered object and the unanswered telephone call. Individually, these circumstances might have innocent explanations. Collectively, they strengthened the inference that the men were transporting drugs.

The court relied on R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140 concerning police reliance on information received from other officers, and R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49 on the need for objective scrutiny of police assessments.

It also adopted the reasoning in R. v. Asante, 2025 ONCA 387. Asante explains that several observations may collectively support a probable conclusion even when each, viewed separately, is consistent with innocent conduct. Police need not eliminate every innocent explanation before forming reasonable grounds to believe. The court also cited R. v. Protz, 2020 SKCA 115 and R. v. Chapman, 2020 SKCA 11 in support of a contextual approach.

The court concluded that the totality of the information available to Giannoulis provided an objectively reasonable basis to believe the men were committing an indictable offence. The arrests therefore did not violate s. 9 of the Charter.

The court did not need to decide the Crown’s separate argument concerning the exclusion of evidence under Grant. Its conclusion that the arrests were lawful was sufficient to dispose of the appeal.

The Crown also had to satisfy the demanding standard for overturning acquittals. Under R. v. Cowan, 2021 SCC 45, an error of law must have materially affected the outcome. R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16 and R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25 describe the Crown’s heavy burden. The Court of Appeal found it had been met because the legal error would not necessarily have led to the acquittals.

The court set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial. The decision did not determine guilt.

The judgment reinforces two principles that must operate together. Police officers may use their specialized knowledge to interpret the circumstances they encounter, but courts must independently assess whether those circumstances objectively justify an arrest. At the same time, judges should not fragment the evidence so thoroughly that they lose its combined significance.

For defence counsel, the decision underscores the importance of examining the information actually available to the arresting officer, its reliability, and the distinction between reasonable suspicion and reasonable grounds to believe. For prosecutors, it demonstrates the value of presenting the full investigative context in Charter proceedings.

The ruling does not lower the threshold for warrantless arrest. It insists that the threshold be applied to the evidence as a whole, a distinction central to effective law enforcement and the Charter’s protection against arbitrary arrest.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books). His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute), was shortlisted as one of five nominees for the Crime Writers of Canada’s Brass Knuckles Award for Best Nonfiction Crime Book. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.