Case information

Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention — Search and seizure — Reasonable suspicion — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that applicant was lawfully detained for investigation owing to reasonable suspicion on part of police officers — If not, whether reasonable suspicion needed to justify investigative detention must concern specific given crime.

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.

Between September 29, 2012 and October 28, 2012, the applicant, Ryan Wolfson, allegedly shot at five people in four separate incidents. Two people were killed and the other three survived their wounds. While in a Montréal bar on November 3, 2012, the applicant was questioned by police officers. He was suspected of acting as a “watchman” for three individuals the police had arrested after discovering a firearm in the possession of one of them. The applicant was detained and subjected to a pat-down search that led to the discovery of a firearm. He was arrested. The officers then obtained various search warrants that enabled them to seize, among other things, firearms that had been used in the above mentioned incidents. The applicant was charged with murder, attempted murder and possession of a restricted firearm.

Before his trial, the applicant filed a motion to exclude evidence in the Quebec Superior Court. He alleged that his right not to be arbitrarily detained and his right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure had been infringed. He sought the exclusion of all evidence obtained in the police operation of November 3, 2012. The trial judge dismissed the motion in a voir dire. After a jury trial, the applicant was found guilty on two counts of attempted murder, one of first degree murder and one of possession of a restricted firearm.

The applicant appealed against the four guilty verdicts, arguing that the trial judge had erred in dismissing his motion to exclude the evidence. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the trial judge had made no palpable and overriding error in assessing the facts related to the incidents of November 3, 2012 and no error of law in declining to exclude the physical evidence discovered in the pat down search. In the Court of Appeal’s view, the trial judge had properly concluded that the rights guaranteed in ss. 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had not been infringed, and it was therefore not necessary to review the principles applicable to applications for the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.