Most people assume their home is their castle — that police cannot simply walk onto their private property without permission or a warrant. However, as reflected in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Singer, the answer is more nuanced than one would expect. While the Court provided clarification where that line is drawn, the narrow 5-4 split underscored just how contentious the issue is.
R. v. Singer – What Happened?
Late one night, two RCMP officers received a complaint about a possibly impaired driver in a small Saskatchewan community. They located a running truck in a private residential driveway that matched the description. Rather than waiting at the road, the officers walked up the driveway and approached the truck. Through the window, they could see the driver (Mr. Singer) asleep or unconscious behind the wheel.
They knocked on the window, with no response. They then opened the truck door, at which point they immediately smelled alcohol on the driver’s breath. A roadside breath test registered a fail. Mr. Singer was arrested and later charged after refusing to provide a further breath sample at the station.
The Road to the Supreme Court
Mr. Singer argued that by entering his private driveway, the police violated his right under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. He asked the court to exclude the evidence — meaning the breath test results and the officers’ observations of impairment couldn’t be used against him at trial.
The trial judge sided with the Crown, finding that there was Charter breach and entering a conviction. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reversed that decision, ruling that the police had no right to enter the driveway for the purpose of gathering evidence of impairment, excluded the evidence and entered an acquittal.
The Crown then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which issued a closely divided 5–4 ruling in March 2026.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The majority of the Court drew a careful distinction between two things the police did that night.
Walking up the driveway and knocking on the window — this was lawful. Canadian common law has long recognized what lawyers call an “implied licence”: anyone, including police, is understood to have permission to approach a front door or knock in order to communicate with the occupant of a home. The Supreme Court confirmed that this implied licence extends to a vehicle parked in the driveway. Writing for the majority, Justice Jamal anchored the test squarely in purpose: the question is not whether the police had an investigative motive, but whether their purpose in approaching was to communicate with the occupant. So long as police are approaching to make contact — and not to conduct a non-communicat ive search — their presence is authorized and what they observe along the way is not a “search” under the Charter.
The majority relied heavily on prior Supreme Court decisions such as R. v. Evans, R. v. MacDonald, and R. v. Godoy, noting that in each of those cases police approached a private residence during an active investigation and no one doubted they were entitled to do so. The majority rejected the approach taken by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal — and followed in some other provinces — that police automatically exceed the implied licence the moment their purpose is to investigate a criminal offence. In the majority’s view, that reading would produce an “Orwellian” result: police could not approach a home even to investigate domestic violence or an impaired driving complaint, because any conversation with the occupant might yield evidence. Legitimate police investigation and communication with occupants are not mutually exclusive.
Opening the truck door — this crossed the line. The majority agreed that the implied licence extends only to the “door” of the dwelling — in this context, the exterior of the vehicle. Once the officers opened the door without consent or a warrant, they crossed into the interior of the truck, a space in which Mr. Singer had a reasonable expectation of privacy. That act constituted a search within the meaning of section 8 of the Charter, and because no warrant existed and no ancillary power was established on the evidence, the search was unreasonable.
So Why Wasn’t the Evidence Thrown Out?
This is where the decision becomes particularly significant. Even though the Court found a Charter breach, five justices ruled that the evidence should not be excluded.
Under section 24(2) of the Charter, courts must weigh whether admitting tainted evidence would bring the justice system into disrepute — viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, informed member of the public. Courts apply a three-part balancing test: how serious was the police misconduct? How significantly did the breach affect the accused’s rights? And how important is it that the case be decided on its merits?
The majority concluded that the police conduct, while unlawful, was not particularly egregious. The officers arguably had genuine reason to believe that an impaired driver in a running truck posed an immediate safety risk — that he could wake up and pull back onto a public road. Opening the door in those circumstances reflected, at worst, a reasonable misunderstanding about the scope of their legal authority. The privacy interest at stake was also somewhat reduced given that the truck was parked in the perimeter of the home, not inside it. Most importantly, impaired driving is a serious offence, and the evidence gathered — the smell of alcohol, the breath test result — was highly reliable and essential to proving the charge.
Balancing all three factors, the Court decided the public interest in prosecuting the offence outweighed the costs of admitting the evidence.
The Strong Dissent
Four justices disagreed. Their reasoning deserves close attention.
Justices O’Bonsawin and Moreau (with Karakatsanis J. concurring) would have dismissed the Crown’s appeal entirely. Their central argument was that the majority had fundamentally mischaracterized what the implied licence is and what it does. The implied licence, they explained, is a property law concept — not a police power. It reflects the customs and social norms that govern access to private land, and its scope is defined by what the occupier can reasonably be taken to have consented to. The critical question, in their view, is the purpose of the entry from a property law standpoint: would the occupier have permitted access for that purpose? The answer, they said, is plainly no when the purpose is to gather evidence against the occupant and build a criminal case. No homeowner can be presumed to welcome the police onto their property for the purpose of substantiating a charge against them.
The moment the officers stepped onto Mr. Singer’s driveway with the intent to investigate him for impaired driving — including by observing him and using their senses of sight, smell, and hearing — they were trespassers, and their presence constituted a search under section 8 from the outset. The dissent argued that the majority’s “communicative purpose” test obscures this, because in reality gathering non-communicative sensory evidence was the officers’ purpose, regardless of whether a conversation might also have followed.
Justice Martin, dissenting separately, agreed that the police exceeded the implied licence and that the evidence should have been excluded, but wrote separately to raise a broader warning about the ancillary powers doctrine. She expressed concern that courts are too readily using judge-made common law to expand police powers in ways that would never survive Charter scrutiny if those same powers were created by legislation. She outlined a set of principles courts should apply before recognizing new police powers, and argued firmly that the power implicitly recognized by the majority — entering private property with intent to observe signs of impairment without reasonable suspicion — falls well short of constitutional minimum standards.
What Does This Mean for You?
If you are at home — inside, in your yard, or in a vehicle parked in your driveway — you have meaningful and enforceable privacy rights. Here is what Singer tells us about where the boundaries now sit:
Police can walk up your driveway and knock on your door or car window to speak with you. That is permitted without any prior authorization, and anything they observe in plain view or through their senses while doing so may be used against you.
Police cannot open your vehicle door, enter your home, or conduct any form of search without a warrant, your consent, or some other recognized legal authority. If they do, that evidence may be challenged in court.
Whether a Charter breach will actually result in the evidence being excluded depends on the full circumstances — including how serious the alleged misconduct was and how important the evidence is to the case. As Singer makes clear, a breach does not automatically mean an acquittal.
Can You Post a Sign to Remove the Implied Licence?
A question that naturally follows from Singer is whether a property owner could simply post a sign — something along the lines of “No implied licence granted to police” or “No trespassing — police entry by warrant only” — and thereby eliminate the implied licence altogether. It is a creative idea, and not without some legal foundation, but the answer is more complicated than the sign would suggest.
The implied licence is a creature of the common law, rooted in property law and social custom. Importantly, the Supreme Court in Singer recognized that the licence can be expressly revoked by the occupier. If a property owner makes clear they do not consent to entry, the implied licence is extinguished — and anyone who enters anyway, including a police officer, becomes a trespasser. On this basis, a prominently posted, clearly worded sign could theoretically defeat the implied licence and mean that police approaching the driveway are doing so unlawfully from the moment they step on the property.
That said, there are real limits to what such a sign can accomplish in practice.
First, the implied licence is just one of several potential legal bases for police entry. Even without it, police retain independent powers that no sign can revoke — including the power to enter in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, to respond to exigent circumstances, or to conduct a safety search where there are reasonable grounds to believe an imminent threat exists. These powers arise from statute and common law, not from the occupier’s implied consent, and a sign has no effect on them.
Second, even if a sign successfully extinguishes the implied licence and results in a Charter breach, the analysis does not end there. As Singer illustrates, courts must still conduct the s. 24(2) balancing exercise. A sign might strengthen the argument for exclusion — particularly by removing any suggestion that the officers’ entry was reasonable — but it is not a guarantee of acquittal.
Third, the effectiveness of such a sign has never been squarely decided by a Canadian appellate court in this specific context. Courts would need to consider whether the sign was sufficiently clear and visible, and whether it was reasonable for the officer to have been aware of it. These are fact-specific questions.
The bottom line: a clearly posted sign revoking the implied licence is not legally meaningless and may well support a stronger Charter argument if police disregard it. But it is not a force field. The more durable protection comes from understanding your rights in the moment — including that you are not required to speak to police, and that you can clearly and calmly tell officers they are not welcome on your property.
If you have been stopped, searched, or charged — particularly following any interaction on your own property — it is worth speaking with a criminal defence lawyer as early as possible. The decisions made in the hours and days after an arrest can have a lasting impact on your case.
About the author
