R. v. Simpson (R.), (1993) 60 O.A.C. 327 (CA)

• Judge: Krever, McKinlay and Doherty, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: February 11, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327 (CA);1993 CanLII 3379 (ON CA);12 OR (3d) 182;20 CR (4th) 1;79 CCC (3d) 482;[1993] CarswellOnt 83;[1993] OJ No 308 (QL);14 CRR (2d) 338;18 WCB (2d) 577;43 MVR (2d) 1;60 OAC 327

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Richard Simpson (appellant)

(No. C10506)

Indexed As: R. v. Simpson (R.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Krever, McKinlay and Doherty, JJ.A.

February 11, 1993.

Summary:

The accused's vehicle was stopped for "investigative purposes". A search of the accused disclosed 10 grams of cocaine. The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The accused appealed, submitting that he was arbitrarily detained (Charter, s. 9) and sub­jected to an unreasonable search and seizure (s. 11). The accused submitted that the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and substi­tuted an acquittal. The accused was arbitrarily detained and subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure and the evidence obtained was to be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Unreasonable search and seizure - The accused's vehicle was ran­domly stopped by police and the accused was arbitrarily detained - The police noticed a bulge in the accused's pocket and ordered him to empty it - Cocaine was discovered - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the accused's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure was denied (Charter, s. 8) - See para­graphs 72 to 77.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - An accused left a "suspected" crack house - The police decided to stop the accused's vehicle for purely investigatory purposes, hoping the accused would "trip himself up" and provide grounds for arrest - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the accused was arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter - The court stated that the detention was unjustified absent some "articulable cause" for the detention - See paragraphs 33 to 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - [See Police - Topic 3208 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - An accused left a "sus­pected" crack house - The police decided to stop the accused's vehicle for purely investigatory purposes, hoping the accused would "trip himself up" and provide grounds for arrest - Cocaine was dis­covered in the accused's pocket - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the accused was arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter and subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) - The court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, because admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 78 to 81.

Police - Topic 3204

Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - Section 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-8, provided that "a police officer, in the lawful execution of his ... duties and responsibilities, may require the driver of a motor vehicle to stop ..." - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that random stops to enforce driving related laws and to promote safe use of motor vehicles were authorized by s. 216(1) - Section 216(1) did not authorize stopping of motor vehicles to investigate crimes unrelated to the operation of motor vehicles - Such police power must be found in other statutory provisions or at common law - See paragraphs 17 to 32.

Police - Topic 3208

Powers - Direction - Random or arbitrary stopping of persons - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "where an individual is detained by the police in the course of efforts to determine whether that individual is involved in criminal activity being in­vestigated by the police, that detention can only be justified if the detaining officer has some 'articulable cause' for the deten­tion" - Articulable cause required objec­tively discernable facts giving reasonable cause to implicate the detainee in the activity being investigated - The court stated that "a 'hunch' based entirely on intuition gained by experience cannot suffice ..." - Absent articulable cause, police had no common law power to detain for investigatory purposes - If articulable cause existed, the detention may or may not be justified - See paragraphs 58, 61, 66.

Cases Noticed:

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) 20; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 170; 32 C.R.R. 193, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Wilson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 8 O.A.C. 31; 50 O.R.(2d) 375; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cayer et al. (1988), 28 O.A.C. 105; 66 C.R.(3d) 30; 6 M.V.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hisey (1985), 12 O.A.C. 191; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 20; 46 M.V.R. 152, refd to. [para. 18].

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, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Mellenthin (1992), 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Knowlton, [1974] S.C.R. 443; 10 C.C.C.(2d) 377, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Biron, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 56; 4 N.R. 45; 23 C.C.C.(2d) 513, refd to. [para. 35].

Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259; 19 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Moore, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 195; 24 N.R. 181; 43 C.C.C.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Landry, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145; 65 N.R. 161; 14 O.A.C. 241; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Interception of Private Communications Reference, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 697; 56 N.R. 43; 58 A.R. 39; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 466, refd to. [para. 35].

Reference Re an Application for an Au­thorization - see Interception of Private Communications Reference.

R. v. Dedman (1981), 32 O.R.(2d) 641; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Esposito (1985), 12 O.A.C. 350; 53 O.R.(2d) 356; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Hicks (1988), 28 O.A.C. 118; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 394; 64 C.R.(3d) 68 (C.A.), affd. [1990] 1 S.C.R. 120; 104 N.R. 399; 37 O.A.C. 143; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 575, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Cluett (1982), 55 N.S.R.(2d) 6; 114 A.P.R. 6; 3 C.C.C.(3d) 333 (C.A.), affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 216; 61 N.R. 388; 70 N.S.R.(2d) 104; 166 A.P.R. 104; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 318, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659; [1964] 1 Q.B. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Elshaw (1988), 70 C.R.(3d) 197; 45 C.R.R. 140 (B.C.C.A.), revd. [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 63 C.R.(3d) 1; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 185; 32 C.R.R. 257, refd to. [para. 52].

United States v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411; 101 S.Ct. 690, refd to. [para. 55].

Alabama v. White (1990), 110 S.Ct. 2412, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 55].

Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1; 88 S.Ct. 1868, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 1; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Nelson (1987), 45 Man.R.(2d) 68; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 347; 29 C.R.R. 80 (C.A.), disagreed with [para. 61].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; 90 N.R. 173; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 67 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418; 42 N.R. 487; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 31, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 73].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 26]; sect. 8 [para. 72]; sect. 9 [para. 13]; sect. 24(2) [para. 78].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 101 [para. 73].

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-8, sect. 189a(1) [para. 21]; sect. 216(1) [para. 17].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 10, sect. 11 [para. 16].

Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-15, sect. 42 [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Barton, Developments in Criminal Pro­cedure: 1985-86 term (1987), 9 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 277, pp. 296 to 302 [para. 35].

Canada, Report of the Canadian Commit­tee on Corrections, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969), pp. 56, 57 [para. 39].

Canada, Report of the Federal/Provincial Committee of Criminal Justice Officials with respect to the McDonald Commis­sion Report (1983), pp. 9 to 58 [para. 35].

Grant, The Supreme Court of Canada and the Police (1978), 20 Crim. L.Q. 152, generally [para. 35].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1992), p. 1072 [para. 39].

Ouimet Report - see Canada, Report of the Federal/Provincial Committee of Criminal Justice Officials with respect to the McDonald Commission Report (1983).

Way, The Law of Police Authority: The McDonald Commission and the McLeod Report (1985), 9 Dal. L.J. 683, generally [para. 35].

Young, All Along the Watch Tower: Arbi­trary Detention and the Police Function (1991), 29 Osgoode Hall L.J. 329, pp. 367 [paras. 37, 52]; 375 [para. 61].

Counsel:

Morris Pistyner, for the respondent;

David G. Bayliss, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on August 26-27, 1992, before Krever, McKinlay and Doherty, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Doherty, J.A., and released on February 11, 1993.