Brown v. Durham Police Force, (1998) 116 O.A.C. 126 (CA)
Judge | Doherty, Weiler and Goudge, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Case Date | May 12, 1998 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126 (CA);1998 CanLII 7198 (NS CA);1998 CanLII 7198 (ON CA);43 OR (3d) 223;167 DLR (4th) 672;131 CCC (3d) 1;21 CR (5th) 1;[1998] OJ No 5274 (QL);116 OAC 126;39 MVR (3d) 133;59 CRR (2d) 5 |
Brown v. Durham Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.031
Lorne Brown, Donald Petersen, Tero Rampanen and 689571 Ontario Limited, operating as Sovereign Property Corporation (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Regional Municipality of Durham Police Service Board (defendant/respondent)
(C24465)
Indexed As: Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force
Ontario Court of Appeal
Doherty, Weiler and Goudge, JJ.A.
December 15, 1998.
Summary:
The police set up checkpoints to stop members of a motorcycle club who were attending parties on property owned by the club. Members of the club sued police claiming that the stops violated their s. 9 Charter rights.
The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the action. The police sought party and party costs. The members claimed that there should be no costs because a novel point of law was involved, and it was a test case.
The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported 2 O.T.C. 28, ordered that there were to be no costs. The members appealed the dismissal of the action. The police cross-appealed the costs finding.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal.
Civil Rights - Topic 3603
Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - The police set up checkpoints to stop members of a motorcycle club who were attending parties on property owned by the club - The police stopped anyone riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle or wearing colours of the club or another gang - Police checked licence, registration and insurance - They conducted a CPIC check - The police checked the vehicles and equipment for mechanical fitness and compliance with safety standards - They videotaped all those stopped - Members of the club sued police, claiming that the stops violated their s. 9 Charter rights - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the detentions were authorized by s. 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and were not arbitrary - See paragraphs 18 to 56.
Civil Rights - Topic 3603
Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - The police set up checkpoints to stop members of a motorcycle club who were attending parties on property owned by the club - The police stopped anyone riding a Harley Davidson motorcycle or wearing colours of the club or another gang - Police checked licence, registration and insurance - They conducted a CPIC check - The police checked the vehicles and equipment for mechanical fitness and compliance with safety standards - They videotaped all those stopped - Members of the club sued police, claiming that the stops violated their s. 9 Charter rights - The police claimed, inter alia, that the detentions were authorized under the common law police duty to preserve the peace and prevent crimes - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the stops and detentions were not authorized at common law - See paragraphs 57 to 80.
Police - Topic 3024
Powers - Common Law - Scope of - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3603 and Police - Topic 3077 ].
Police - Topic 3077
Powers - Arrest and detention - For apprehended breach of the peace - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the police common law power to arrest or detain a person to prevent an apprehended breach of the peace - The court stated that "the apprehended breach must be imminent and the risk that the breach will occur must be substantial" - The police officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the anticipated conduct will likely occur if the person is not detained - The power to arrest for an apprehended breach of the peace is not meant as a mechanism whereby the police can control and monitor on an ongoing basis the comings and goings of those they regard as dangerous and prone to criminal activity - See paragraphs 70 to 75.
Police - Topic 3204
Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - Section 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) authorized police to stop vehicles - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "[t]he detention authorized by s. 216(1) of the HTA is circumscribed by its purpose. The detention is limited to the roadside [including an adjacent parking lot] and must be brief, unless other grounds are established for a further detention. The police may require production of the documents which drivers are required to have with them and may detain the vehicle and its occupants while those documents are checked against information available through the computer terminal in the police vehicle. The police may also assess the mechanical fitness of the vehicle, examine equipment for compliance with safety standards and from outside of the vehicle, make a visual examination of the interior to ensure their own safety in the course of the detention ... More intrusive examinations or inquiries directed at matters not relevant to highway safety concerns are not authorized by s. 216(1) of the HTA" - See paragraph 24.
Police - Topic 3204
Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - Section 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) authorized police to stop vehicles - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that highway safety concerns were a legitimate purpose for stopping vehicles - The court stated that where the police have stopped and detained a vehicle under s. 216(1), they can avail themselves of the opportunity to further some legitimate police interest - However, if one of the purposes motivating the stop and detention was improper, then the stop is unlawful even if highway safety concerns factored into the decision to stop and detain the vehicle - See paragraphs 26 to 41.
Police - Topic 3204
Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].
Police - Topic 3208
Powers - Direction - Random or arbitrary stopping of persons - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3603 and first and second Police - Topic 3204 ].
Practice - Topic 7029
Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - Members of a motorcycle club were stopped by police at checkpoints established on public highways leading to property owned by the club - Members of the club sued the police for damages, claiming that their s. 9 Charter rights were violated - The trial judge dismissed the action - The trial judge denied the police party and party costs because the action was a test case that raised novel legal issues of considerable public importance - The members appealed and the police cross-appealed the costs finding - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal - The court refused to order costs on appeal on the same basis - See paragraphs 81 to 83.
Practice - Topic 7029.5
Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to - Successful party - Exceptions - Where not in public or private interest - [See Practice - Topic 7029 ].
Practice - Topic 8331
Costs - Appeals - Costs of appeal - Novel or important questions - [See Practice - Topic 7029 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 217; 207 N.R. 215; 152 Sask.R. 1; 140 W.A.C. 1; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 6].
R. v. Goodwin (No. 2), [1993] 3 N.Z.L.R. 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 6].
R. v. Simpson (R.), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Monney (I.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 1; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Saulnier (1990), 23 M.V.R.(2d) 16 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Simpson (D.) (1994), 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 110; 365 A.P.R. 110; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (Nfld. C.A.), revd. [1995] 1 S.C.R. 449; 178 N.R. 145; 127 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171; 396 A.P.R. 171; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 96, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, consd. [para. 21].
R. v. Soucisse (G.) (1994), 63 Q.A.C. 71; 5 M.V.R.(3d) 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Wilson (M.C.) (1993), 36 B.C.A.C. 161; 58 W.A.C. 161; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. MacLennan (J.W.) (1995), 138 N.S.R.(2d) 369; 394 A.P.R. 369; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Montour (T.S.) and Longboat (S.R.) (1994), 150 N.B.R.(2d) 7; 385 A.P.R. 7; 5 M.V.R.(3d) 250 (C.A.), revd. [1995] 2 S.C.R. 416; 182 N.R. 154; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 158; 419 A.P.R. 158, refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 16 C.R.(4th) 273, consd. [para. 24].
R. v. G.A.E. (1992), 77 C.C.C.(3d) 60 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Zammit (J.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 272; 13 O.R.(3d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, consd. [para. 32].
R. v. Annett (1984), 6 O.A.C. 302; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1985), 58 N.R. 339; 9 O.A.C. 80; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Parsons (G.) (1993), 65 O.A.C. 61; 15 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. Shortreed (1990), 37 O.A.C. 144; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 51].
R. v. Wilson (J.W.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 51].
R. v. Jacques (J.R.) and Mitchell (M.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312; 202 N.R. 49; 180 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 458 A.P.R. 161; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 52].
Knowlton v. R. (1973), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 377 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].
R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].
R. v. Ferris (T.L.) (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 244; 176 W.A.C. 244; 16 C.R.(5th) 287; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Godoy (V.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 104; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 272 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman et al. (1994), 20 O.R.(3d) 229 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 68].
Hayes v. Thompson et al. (1985), 18 C.C.C.(3d) 254 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].
R. v. Howell (1981), 73 Cr. App. R. 31 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].
Albert v. Lavin, [1982] A.C. 546 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 72].
Percy v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1995] 3 All E.R. 124 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9 [para. 18].
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-8, sect. 216(1) [para. 20].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Stuart, Politically Expedient but Potentially Unjust Legislation Against Gangs (1988), 2 Can. Crim. L.R. 208, generally [para. 69, footnote 11].
Counsel:
Robert M. Girvan, for the appellants;
David J.D. Sims and David R. Neill, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 12, 1998, by Doherty, Weiler and Goudge, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Doherty, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal on December 15, 1998.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45
...Industries Ltd. v. Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy Council (2006), 82 O.R. (3d) 721 ; Brown v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 43 O.R. (3d) 223; R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 , [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59 ; R. v. Kang‑Brown, 2008 SCC 18 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456 ; R. v. Reeves, 2018 SCC 56 ; ......
-
R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
...v. Arvizu (R.) (2002), 534 U.S. 266 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 22]. Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 21 C.R.(5th) 1; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 672; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 39 M.V.R.(3d) 133; 59 C.R.R.(2d) 5; 43 O.R.(3d) 223; 1998 CarswellOnt 5020 (C.A.), le......
-
Pauli et al. v. Ace INA Insurance et al., (2003) 336 A.R. 85 (QB)
...O.T.C. Uned. 91 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20]. Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1996), 2 O.T.C. 28 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 43 O.R.(3d) 223 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1999), 252 N.R. 198; 133 O.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20]. Abdool et al. v. A......
-
R. v. Kang-Brown (G.), (2008) 432 A.R. 1 (SCC)
...R. v. Lal (S.N.) (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 47 ; 184 W.A.C. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77]. Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78]. Reid v. Georgia (1980), 448 U.S. 438 , refd to. [para. 79]. R. v. Dinh (H.T.) et al.......
-
Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45
...Industries Ltd. v. Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy Council (2006), 82 O.R. (3d) 721 ; Brown v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 43 O.R. (3d) 223; R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52 , [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59 ; R. v. Kang‑Brown, 2008 SCC 18 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456 ; R. v. Reeves, 2018 SCC 56 ; ......
-
R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
...v. Arvizu (R.) (2002), 534 U.S. 266 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 22]. Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 21 C.R.(5th) 1; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 672; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 39 M.V.R.(3d) 133; 59 C.R.R.(2d) 5; 43 O.R.(3d) 223; 1998 CarswellOnt 5020 (C.A.), le......
-
Pauli et al. v. Ace INA Insurance et al., (2003) 336 A.R. 85 (QB)
...O.T.C. Uned. 91 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20]. Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1996), 2 O.T.C. 28 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 43 O.R.(3d) 223 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1999), 252 N.R. 198; 133 O.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20]. Abdool et al. v. A......
-
R. v. Ladouceur,
...117 ; 97 Sask.R. 96 ; 12 W.A.C. 96 ; 12 C.R.(4th) 98 , consd. [paras. 25, 101, 113]. Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 1 ; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 672 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 25, R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615 ; 144 N.R. 50 ; 135 A.R.......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 8 12, 2019)
...8, 9, R v. Gonzales, 2017 ONCA 543, 136 O.R. (3d) 255, R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257, Brown v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 43 O.R. (3d) 223 (C.A.), R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, R. v. Sandhu, 2011 ONCA 124, R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24, R. v. Humphrey, 2011 ONSC 3024 v. Grant , 201......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (January 21 25, 2019)
...c. T.21, R. v. Czibulka, 2011 ONCA 82, R. v. Grafe (1987), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 267 (Ont. C.A.), Brown v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 43 O.R. (3d) 223 (C.A.), R. v. Amofa, 2011 ONCA 368, R. v. Peterkin, 2015 ONCA 8, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33, R. v. Mann, 2004 SC......
-
Top 5 Civil Appeals From The Court Of Appeal - April 2015
...when weighed against the infringement of Figueiras' liberty interests. As Doherty J.A. held in Brown v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 43 O.R. (3d) 223 (C.A.), the balance struck between common law police powers and individual liberties puts a premium on individual freedom: "We want t......
-
Table of cases
...v Laviolette (1994), 21 CCLT (2d) 105, [1994] BCJ No 1646 (SC) ......... 257 Brown v Durham (Regional Municipality) Police Force (1998), 43 OR (3d) 223, 131 CCC (3d) 1, [1998] OJ No 5274 (CA) .................... 42, 76, 127, 159, 303−4 Campbell v Edmonton (City) Police Service (1985), 66 A......
-
The Short End of the Stick: Bolstering Legal Protections for Short Sellers in Ontario’s Secondary Market
...at para 42 (CA). Ibid. R v Wilson, [1990] 1 SCR 1291. Brown v Regional Municipality of Durham Police Service Board, [1998] OJ No 5274, 43 OR (3d) 223 (CA). 51 R v Brown, [2003] OJ No 1251, 64 OR (3d) 161 (CA). 52 Ibid at para 45. 53 R v Golden, 2001 SCC 83 The C a nadia n Cl a ss Action R e......
-
The Criminal Law System
...messages through 79 R v Golden , 2001 SCC 83. 80 Brown v Regional Municipality of Durham Police Service Board (1999), 167 DLR (4th) 672, 43 OR (3d) 223 (CA). wiretaps and messages sent through the internet. Even the examination of documents by government regulators can be counted as a searc......
-
Access to Justice: An Objective Or Incidental Effect of Class Actions?
...at para 42 (CA). Ibid. R v Wilson, [1990] 1 SCR 1291. Brown v Regional Municipality of Durham Police Service Board, [1998] OJ No 5274, 43 OR (3d) 223 (CA). 51 R v Brown, [2003] OJ No 1251, 64 OR (3d) 161 (CA). 52 Ibid at para 45. 53 R v Golden, 2001 SCC 83 The C a nadia n Cl a ss Action R e......