R v M (MR)
supreme Court of Canada case
R v M (MR), [1998] 3 SCR 393 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on search and seizure by teachers and principals in Canadian schools (not colleges or universities). In this case, a student's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were not violated by being searched by a school principal with a police constable present.
Background
A vice-principal of a junior high school in Nova Scotia had been informed by some students that another student, M.R., had planned to sell drugs at an upcoming school dance. The vice-principal asked M.R. and his friend to come to his office. The vice-principal advised them that he was going to search them for drugs. An RCMP officer, who had been called there by the vice-principal according to school policy, was in the office but did not interfere.
M.R. emptied his pockets and, after being asked by the vice-principal to do so, pulled up his pant legs. There was a bulge in his sock. The vice-principal removed a plastic bag of marijuana. The bag was given to the police officer who advised M.R. that he was under arrest for possession of a narcotic.
“R v M (MR)” enters the record as supreme Court of Canada case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what supreme, Court and Canada can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“R v M (MR)” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, supreme, Court and Canada provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7274262. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1998.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “R v M (MR)”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow R v M (MR) primary sources, R v M (MR) archive and supreme research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “R v M (MR)”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “R v M (MR)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.