Summary

Keywords

Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention — At trial the applicant submitted that his ss. 8, 9, 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights were violated — Does the limited power to detain for investigative purposes require “recent” or “ongoing” criminality and how should those terms be understood —Assuming police reasonably suspect the commission of a recent or ongoing offence, is an investigative detention justified for any crime, including relatively low level, non-violent offences (including provincial regulatory offences) — ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Summary

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.

Two police officers testified that they had seen the applicant driving a truck in an erratic and dangerous fashion which they at first believed to be consistent with vehicle theft but later they thought it indicated that the driver was impaired. After stopping the vehicle, the officer questioned the applicant and he replied that he had had four beers. The officer noticed that the applicant had trouble keeping his eyes open, they were red and glassy and his speech was slurred, and so advised him that he had a reasonable suspicion that he had alcohol in his body and asked him to take the ASD test in the police cruiser. He failed the test and the officer then made the breath demand and advised him of his right to counsel. The applicant brought an application alleging violations of his ss. 8, 9, 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights. The trial judge found that there was no arbitrary detention and s. 9 of the Charter was not breached. The applicant’s s. 10(b) Charter right had not been breached. After conducting a Grant analysis respecting the s. 10(a) Charter breach, the evidence was not excluded. The Summary Conviction Appeal judge held that there was no s. 10(a) Charter violation, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal.

Lower Court Rulings