Assuming, without deciding, that the principle set out in German is correct, I see no error of law or jurisdiction in the trial judge’s decision. The foundation of the respondents’ argument is that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds. The trial judge considered this issue. That consideration required him to make findings of fact as to the knowledge and belief of the fisheries officers and to apply to those findings the legal standard for obtaining a warrant. Simply put, the judge had to determine whether the knowledge and belief of the fisheries officers were such that “credibly based probability” had replaced “suspicion”: see Hunter v. Southam, 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145at 167.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.