Case information

Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention — Search and Seizure — Criminal law — Application to have drug and firearms evidence excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter on the basis of alleged violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter dismissed — Where no criminal activity is being investigated, and no crime has been reported, are police officers entitled to rely on the reputation or history of an individual’s prior involvement in an Indigenous gang, where they happen upon that individual, as the basis for concluding that reasonable suspicion exists for effecting an investigative detention of that individual — Where no criminal activity is being investigated, and no crime has been reported, are police officers entitled to rely on unspecified and dated hearsay pertaining to an individual as the basis for concluding that reasonable suspicion exists for effecting an investigative detention of that individual or conducting a safety search — ss. 8, 9, 24(2) of the Charter.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

At night, the applicant was observed to be jogging through some back yards by two police officers. When the applicant made eye contact, one police officer recognized him. He had never met the applicant but had seen his photo on many occasions in reports. The police officer knew the applicant to be a member of the Indian Posse. The police officer’s training and the reports led him to suspect the applicant was carrying a weapon. The applicant was detained for a weapons offence investigation and a search of the fanny pack he was wearing under his jacket. A handgun and drugs were located in the search of the applicant. The applicant’s application to have the drug and firearm evidence excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter on the basis of alleged violations of the applicant’s rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter was dismissed. The applicant was convicted for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition, and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.