R. v. Iron, (1987) 53 Sask.R. 241 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Wakeling and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: January 20, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1987), 53 Sask.R. 241 (CA);1987 CanLII 2866 (SK CA);[1987] 3 WWR 97;55 CR (3d) 289;27 CRR 243;45 MVR 287;53 Sask R 241

R. v. Iron (1987), 53 Sask.R. 241 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Iron

(No. 2317)

Indexed As: R. v. Iron

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Wakeling and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.

January 20, 1987.

Summary:

The accused was stopped by a police officer conducting a routine check and it was discovered that he did not have a valid driver's licence. The accused was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified from doing so contrary to s. 165(1) of the Vehicles Act (see 45 Sask.R. 176). The accused appealed his conviction. The issue before the court was the constitutional validity of a random stop by the police for the purpose of checking documents.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal. The court held that the random stop was not authorized by statute or common law and was a violation of the accused's right not to be arbitrarily detained. The evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter because its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Wakeling, J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3601

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - General - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that for any detention to be constitutional under s. 9 of the Charter, which guaranteed the right not to be arbitrarily detained, it had to be provided for by statute or common law - The law providing for the power to detain had to not permit detention to be effected on the basis of unfettered police discretion or in the absence of reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been or is being committed - See paragraph 8.

Civil Rights - Topic 3601

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - General - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated whether a particular detention was justified did not speak to whether it was arbitrary within s. 9 of the Charter, which guaranteed the right not to be arbitrarily detained - See paragraph 8.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that a random spot check for the purpose of checking documents was arbitrary within the meaning of s. 9 of the Charter, which guaranteed the right not to be arbitrarily detained - It was arbitrary because it amounted to a detention without reasonable and probable grounds at the unfettered discretion of the police - See paragraph 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence - Reverse onus provisions - What constitutes - A judge of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that a provision which provided a prima facie element of proof of one fact of the offence which was rebuttable, if evidence to the contrary was presented, did not create a reverse onus - There was a distinction between a provision which merely provided an administrative efficiency in the proof of an element of a crime and a provision which provided in effect that without an adequate explanation the accused was deemed to be guilty - See paragraph 92.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the criteria which had to be shown by a party seeking to uphold a limit on a Charter right - See paragraph 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - An accused was stopped by a police officer conducting a random spot check and it was discovered that he did not have a valid driver's licence - The accused was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified from doing so - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal from conviction, held that the accused was arbitrarily detained within the meaning of s. 9 of the Charter - To admit evidence obtained directly from the arbitrary detention would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraph 34.

Criminal Law - Topic 5334.1

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Waiver of - A judge of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that when counsel for an accused was advised that a witness' evidence might require a voir dire, and that counsel by words and conduct indicated that it was not necessary to hold a voir dire, a voir dire was sufficiently waived - See paragraph 87.

Police - Topic 3208

Powers - Direction - Random or arbitrary stopping of persons - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that s. 22(1) of the Vehicles Act, S.S. 1983, c. V-3.1, which provided that a driver had to produce his licence at the request of a police officer, and s. 83(7), which imposed a duty upon a motorist to stop when requested or signalled to do so by a police officer, did not authorize a police officer to make random stops for the purpose of checking documents.

Police - Topic 3208

Powers - Direction - Random or arbitrary stopping of persons - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that a police officer could not derive authority to make random stops for the purpose of checking documents from the common law - The importance and necessity of deterring unlicenced drivers was not sufficient to support such a common law authority - See paragraph 16.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97, consd. [paras. 6, 14, 60].

R. v. Simon, [1982] 4 W.W.R. 71 (N.W.T.S.C.), consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Langevin (1984), 11 C.C.C.(3d) 336 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Konechny, [1984] 2 W.W.R. 481 (N.W.T.S.C.), consd. [paras. 7, 52].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 50 C.R.(3d) 1, consd. [paras. 9, 43].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, appld. [para. 14].

Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 44 U.S. 648, 59 L. Ed.(2d) 660, consd. [paras. 19, 70].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 27 B.L.R. 297; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; 34 D.T.C. 6467, refd to. [para. 21].

California v. Richard T. (1986), 225 Cal. Reptr. 899, consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Dombrowski (1985), 44 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Duguay (1985), 45 C.R.(3d) 140; 8 O.A.C. 31, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Big M. Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 381, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 236; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; 32 M.V.R. 153, refd to. [para. 50].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Neufeld (1986), 35 Man.R.(2d) 277; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 65, consd. [para. 65].

Re Martin et al. and Department of Social Services (1980), 108 D.L.R.(3d) 765, consd. [para. 67).

U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez et al. (1983), 77 L. Ed.(2d) 22, consd. [para. 74].

Operation Dismantle v. Canada, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 75].

R. v. Park, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 64; 37 N.R. 501, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Johnson (1985), 14 C.C.C.(3d) 92, refd to. [para. 93].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 1 [paras. 9, 18, 29, 30, 32, 40, 79]; sect. 2 [para. 43]; sect. 7 [para. 45]; sect. 8 [paras. 9, 21, 45]; sect. 9 [paras. 7 to 18, 27, 28, 34 to 82]; sect. 24(2) [para. 34].

Vehicles Act, S.S. 1983, c. V-3.1, sect. 22(1) [para. 10]; sect. 83 [paras. 11, 12]; sect. 83(7) [para. 10]; sect. 165(1) [paras. 1, 37, 39, 85]; sect. 165(5) [paras. 90, 93, 94].

Authors and Works Noticed:

The Constitutionality of Roadblocks, [1986] Court Review 20 [para. 24].

Counsel:

A.K. Pandila, for the appellant;

D.M. Brown, for the respondent.

This case was heard before Bayda, C.J.S., Wakeling and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

On January 20, 1987, the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Sherstobitoff, J.A. (Bayda, C.J.S., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 35.

Wakeling, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 36 to 95.