R. v. Castor (R.L.), (2006) 395 A.R. 270 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 03, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 395 A.R. 270 (PC);2006 ABPC 64

R. v. Castor (R.L.) (2006 ), 395 A.R. 270 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. MR.115

Her Majesty The Queen v. Robert Lee Castor (051306405P101001; 02; 2006 ABPC 64)

Indexed As: R. v. Castor (R.L.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

March 3, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged with assault respecting his interaction with security guards in a shopping mall. The guards were attempting to question the accused and his companions respecting a suspected theft earlier that day. The accused was uncooperative and threatened a guard by shaking his fist in his face. The guards then arrested the accused for his threats and assault. The accused submitted that he was arbitrarily detained (Charter, s. 9) and sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1).

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8311 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - The accused was charged with assault respecting his interaction with security guards in a shopping mall - The guards were attempting to question the accused and his companions respecting a suspected theft earlier that day - The accused was uncooperative and threatened a guard by shaking his fist in his face - The guards then arrested the accused for his threats and assault - The accused submitted that he was arbitrarily detained (Charter, s. 9) and sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) - The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application - The court was bound by precedent establishing that a private individual making an arrest performed a state function and the Charter applied - However, the accused's arbitrary detention claim was based on the guards having no right to initially stop and question him - The court held that the security guards, when detaining the accused for investigative purposes, were not performing a governmental function - Accordingly, the Charter did not apply (s. 32), and there could be no arbitrary detention at that point - After that point, when the accused threatened and assaulted the guards, the accused was lawfully arrested as he was then "committing" an offence.

Criminal Law - Topic 3214

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Arrest - Powers of private citizens (incl. security guards) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8311 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bercha (M.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 766 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Graham (P.), [2000] O.T.C. 116; 10 M.V.R.(4th) 139 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Proulx, [1988] O.J. No. 890 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Didow (1988), 89 A.R. 227 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Hildebrand v. Freson Market Ltd. (2004), 353 A.R. 194 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v .Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 11].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Godoy (V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; 235 N.R. 134; 117 O.A.C. 127, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Lerke (1986), 67 A.R. 390 (C.A.), folld. [para. 20].

R. v. A.M.J. (1999), 125 B.C.A.C. 238; 204 W.A.C. 238; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. N.S., [2004] O.J. No. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Skeir (C.W.) (2005), 233 N.S.R.(2d) 298; 739 A.P.R. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Shafie (1989), 31 O.A.C. 362; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. M.R.M., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393; 233 N.R. 1; 171 N.S.R.(2d) 125; 519 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Asante-Mensah (D.), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 3; 306 N.R. 289; 175 O.A.C. 317, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Dell (B.M.) (2005), 367 A.R. 279; 346 W.A.C. 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 32(1) [para. 18].

Counsel:

S. Burke, for the Crown;

M. Gourlay, for the accused.

This voir dire was held at Edmonton, Alberta, before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on March 3, 2006.