R. v. Ladouceur

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2002 SKCA 73
• Citation: (2002), 223 Sask.R. 161 (CA),2002 SKCA 73,1934 CanLII 190 (BS SC),[2002] 9 WWR 209,165 CCC (3d) 321,2 CR (6th) 68,[2002] SJ No 343 (QL),223 Sask R 161,94 CRR (2d) 189,[2002] S.J. No 343 (QL),(2002), 223 SaskR 161 (CA),223 Sask.R. 161,223 SaskR 161
• Date: 14 December 2001

R. v. Ladouceur (M.J.) (2002), 223 Sask.R. 161 (CA);

    277 W.A.C. 161

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.018

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Michael James Ladouceur (respondent)

(No. 173; 2002 SKCA 73)

Indexed As: R. v. Ladouceur (M.J.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Jackson, JJ.A.

June 3, 2002.

Summary:

The RCMP conducted a check-stop program ("Operation Recovery"), the stated purposes of which were to check for "prohibited/impaired drivers, CVSA inspections, drugs, tobacco, firearms, alcohol and any other infractions under provincial legislation and the Criminal Code". A vehicle driven by the accused was stopped. As a result of what the police learned from the accused and his passenger, and after conducting visual and olfactory checks of his vehicle and C.P.I.C. checks on both the accused and his passenger, and finally searching the vehicle, the police charged the accused with trafficking in marijuana in an amount exceeding three kilograms.

The trial judge held that the police did not have authority to conduct a roadblock to check for drugs, tobacco, firearms, alcohol, or any other infractions under provincial legislation or the Criminal Code and that the check-stop was unlawful and violated the accused's right not to be arbitrarily detained under s. 9 of the Charter. The trial judge excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, stating that its admission would give judicial approval to police activity that was prohibited and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In the event that he was in error on the first point, the trial judge went on to find that the police at the check-stop did not have reasonable and probable grounds to ask the accused to pull into the safety zone to conduct a further investigation. The trial judge dismissed the charge. The Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Tallis, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court affirmed that the check-stop was unlawful, that the accused was arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter, and that the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - The RCMP conducted a check-stop program to check for "prohibited/impaired drivers, CVSA inspections, drugs, tobacco, firearms, alcohol and any other infractions under provincial legislation and the Criminal Code" - A vehicle driven by the accused was stopped - After police searched the vehicle, the accused was charged with trafficking in marijuana in an amount exceeding three kilograms - The trial judge held that the police did not have authority to conduct a roadblock to check for drugs, tobacco, firearms, alcohol, or any other infractions under provincial legislation or the Criminal Code and that the operation was unlawful and violated the accused's right not to be arbitrarily detained under s. 9 of the Charter - The trial judge excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - The court held that a check-stop operation, which had as one of its purposes an investigation or search for possible illegal contraband, was unlawful and that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the accused was arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter or that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 1 to 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3109

Powers - Investigation - Motor vehicles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3204

Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3208

Powers - Direction - Random or arbitrary stopping of persons - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 34 M.V.R. 1, consd. [paras. 22, 101].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398, consd. [paras. 22, 101].

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. [paras. 22, 101].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Brown (2001), 210 Sask.R. 295 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Duncanson (1991), 93 Sask.R. 193; 4 W.A.C. 193; 12 C.R.(4th) 86; 30 M.V.R.(2d) 17 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 1 S.C.R. 836; 135 N.R. 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, 65].

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. [paras. 28, 64, 76].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405, consd. [paras. 39, 125].

Indianapolis (City) v. Edmond et al. (2000), 531 U.S. 32; 121 S.Ct. 447, consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Goncalves (H.M.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 3; 150 N.R. 384; 135 A.R. 397; 33 W.A.C. 397; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 240, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 450; 38 C.R.(4th) 330; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Laliberte, [1989] 6 W.W.R. 459; 76 Sask.R. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508, refd to. [para. 51].

Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, refd to. [para. 105].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3; 180 N.R. 241; 60 B.C.A.C. 1; 99 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 123].

Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) - see Phillips et al. v. Richard, J.

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 129; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 20; 28 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 126].

Entick v. Carrington, [1765] S.C. 19 How. St. Tri. 1030; 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Smith (W.M.) (1998), 219 A.R. 109; 179 W.A.C. 109; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 62; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 140].

R. v. I.D.D. (1987), 60 Sask.R. 72; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

R. v. Phan (H.H.) et al. (2002), 213 Sask.R. 245; 260 W.A.C. 245 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. Keshane (B.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 413; 203 N.R. 3; 148 Sask.R. 39; 134 W.A.C. 39, refd to. [para. 154].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 159].

R. v. Keshane (B.M.) (1996), 134 Sask.R. 314; 101 W.A.C. 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

R. v. Fliss (P.W.) (2002), 283 N.R. 120; 163 B.C.A.C. 1; 267 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 159].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 23, consd. [para. 166].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [para. 168, footnote 21].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 169].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9 [para. 1]; sect. 24 [para. 49].

Highway Traffic Act, S.S. 1986, c. H-3.1, sect. 40(8) [para. 23, footnote 2].

Counsel:

Douglas Curliss, for the appellant;

Haarold Mattson and Craig Parry, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 14, 2001, before Bayda, C.J.S., and Tallis and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on June 3, 2002, including the following opinions:

Jackson, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 60;

Bayda, C.J.S. - see paragraphs 61 to 73;

Tallis, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 74 to 174.