R. v. Grant
Encyclopedia
R. v. Grant is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
on section 9
, section 10
, and section 24(2)
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
. The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the Collins test
.
on him. Mr. Grant was arrested, and the marijuana and a loaded revolver were seized. Mr. Grant was never informed of his right to speak to a lawyer prior to being arrested.
The trial judge found that Mr. Grant was not detained before his arrest, and that section 9
and section 10
of Charter
were not infringed. The gun was admitted into evidence, and Mr. Grant was convicted of a number of firearm offences, including transferring a firearm without lawful authority (section 100(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada
).
On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that a detention occurred when Mr. Grant began making incriminating statements, and since there were no reasonable grounds to detain Mr. Grant, section 9 of the Charter was infringed. Applying the Collins test
, the related Stillman test
, and other subsequent jurisprudence, the Court of Appeal found that admission of the firearm would not unduly undermine the trial fairness. As a result, they would not have excluded the firearm, and the convictions were not overturned. The Court of Appeal also noted that moving a firearm from one place to another met the definition of 'transfer'.
and Charron J.
In cases where there is no physical restraint or legal obligation, it may not be clear whether a person has been detained. To determine whether the reasonable person in the individual’s circumstances would conclude the state had deprived them of the liberty of choice, the court may consider, inter alia, the following factors:
The majority went on to find that Mr. Grant was psychologically detained when he was told to keep his hands in front of him and when the other officers moved into position to prevent him from walking forward. Therefore, he was arbitrarily detained, and denied his right to counsel.
In a concurring decision, Binnie J.
disagreed with the majority's analysis of the definition of detention, but agreed that Mr. Grant was detained before he incriminated himself, infringing his Charter rights. In a second concurring decision, Deschamps J.
also agreed that Mr. Grant was detained prior to incriminating himself.
The majority found that the analytical framework found in the prior leading cases of R. v. Collins
and R. v. Stillman
had created justifiable criticisms, and the majority set out a revised test, consisting of three parts:
After applying all three inquiries into the evidence obtained from Mr. Grant, the majority found that the gun should not be excluded as evidence against Mr. Grant.
Binnie J. agreed entirely with the majority's analysis of section 24(2). Deschamps J. agreed that the Collins test needed replacing, but disagreed with the majority's proposed test. Nonetheless, she agreed with the majority's ultimate conclusion that the gun should not be excluded as evidence against Mr. Grant.
. The majority found that "transfer" in such a context required some type of transaction. Deschampes J. expressely agreed with the majority's analysis. Binnie J. did not comment on the issue, other than stating he agreed with the majority's ultimate disposition of the appeal.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
on section 9
Section Nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter, guarantees the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment...
, section 10
Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies rights upon arrest or detention, including the rights to consult a lawyer and the right to habeas corpus. As a part of a broader range of legal rights guaranteed by the Charter, section 10 rights may be limited by the Oakes test...
, and section 24(2)
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated...
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
. The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the Collins test
R. v. Collins
R. v. Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 8 and was a leading case on section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter...
.
Background
Three Toronto police officers were patrolling a school area known for a high crime rate, for the purposes of monitoring the area and maintaining a safe student environment. Police observed Donnohue Grant in the area, acting suspiciously. A uniformed police officer went to speak to Mr. Grant, asked him what was going on, and asked him for his name and address. Mr. Grant handed over his identification, and continued acting nervously. He went to adjust his jacket, prompting the officer to ask Mr. Grant to keep his hands in front of him. Worried about the safety of the first officer, the other two officers arrived, identified themselves, and obstructed Mr. Grant's ability to continue walking forward. A conversation took place with Mr. Grant, at which point he advised police he had marijuana and a firearmFirearm
A firearm is a weapon that launches one, or many, projectile at high velocity through confined burning of a propellant. This subsonic burning process is technically known as deflagration, as opposed to supersonic combustion known as a detonation. In older firearms, the propellant was typically...
on him. Mr. Grant was arrested, and the marijuana and a loaded revolver were seized. Mr. Grant was never informed of his right to speak to a lawyer prior to being arrested.
The trial judge found that Mr. Grant was not detained before his arrest, and that section 9
Section Nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter, guarantees the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment...
and section 10
Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies rights upon arrest or detention, including the rights to consult a lawyer and the right to habeas corpus. As a part of a broader range of legal rights guaranteed by the Charter, section 10 rights may be limited by the Oakes test...
of Charter
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
were not infringed. The gun was admitted into evidence, and Mr. Grant was convicted of a number of firearm offences, including transferring a firearm without lawful authority (section 100(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada
Criminal Code of Canada
The Criminal Code or Code criminel is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law"...
).
On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that a detention occurred when Mr. Grant began making incriminating statements, and since there were no reasonable grounds to detain Mr. Grant, section 9 of the Charter was infringed. Applying the Collins test
R. v. Collins
R. v. Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 8 and was a leading case on section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter...
, the related Stillman test
R. v. Stillman
R. v. Stillman [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607, was a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24 of the Constitution of Canada which allowed for the exclusion of evidence that is obtained in a manner that infringes the Charter...
, and other subsequent jurisprudence, the Court of Appeal found that admission of the firearm would not unduly undermine the trial fairness. As a result, they would not have excluded the firearm, and the convictions were not overturned. The Court of Appeal also noted that moving a firearm from one place to another met the definition of 'transfer'.
Reasons of the court
The majority judgment was given by McLachlin C.J.Beverley McLachlin
Beverley McLachlin, PC is the Chief Justice of Canada, the first woman to hold this position. She also serves as a Deputy of the Governor General of Canada.-Early life:...
and Charron J.
Louise Charron
Louise Charron is a Canadian jurist. She was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in October, 2004, and is the first native-born Franco-Ontarian Supreme Court judge...
Sections 9 and 10
The majority found that "detention" refers to a suspension of an individual's liberty interest by a significant physical or psychological restraint. Psychological detention is established either where the individual has a legal obligation to comply with the restrictive request or demand, or a reasonable person would conclude by reason of the state conduct that they had no choice but to comply.In cases where there is no physical restraint or legal obligation, it may not be clear whether a person has been detained. To determine whether the reasonable person in the individual’s circumstances would conclude the state had deprived them of the liberty of choice, the court may consider, inter alia, the following factors:
- The circumstances giving rise to the encounter as would reasonably be perceived by the individual: whether the police were providing general assistance; maintaining general order; making general inquiries regarding a particular occurrence; or, singling out the individual for focused investigation.
- The nature of the police conduct, including the language used; the use of physical contact; the place where the interaction occurred; the presence of others; and the duration of the encounter.
- The particular characteristics or circumstances of the individual where relevant, including age; physical stature; minority status; level of sophistication.
The majority went on to find that Mr. Grant was psychologically detained when he was told to keep his hands in front of him and when the other officers moved into position to prevent him from walking forward. Therefore, he was arbitrarily detained, and denied his right to counsel.
In a concurring decision, Binnie J.
Ian Binnie
William Ian Corneil Binnie was a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from 1998 to 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few to have never sat as a judge prior to his appointment.- Personal life and career as lawyer :Binnie was...
disagreed with the majority's analysis of the definition of detention, but agreed that Mr. Grant was detained before he incriminated himself, infringing his Charter rights. In a second concurring decision, Deschamps J.
Marie Deschamps
Marie Deschamps is a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada.-Education:She studied law at the Université de Montréal, graduating in 1974 and completing a Masters in 1983 at McGill.-Career:...
also agreed that Mr. Grant was detained prior to incriminating himself.
Section 24(2)
Once a violation was found, the case turned on the application of section 24(2), which states that once a violation of an individual's Charter rights have been found, the evidence obtained through the violation must be excluded if its inclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.The majority found that the analytical framework found in the prior leading cases of R. v. Collins
R. v. Collins
R. v. Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 8 and was a leading case on section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1982 which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter...
and R. v. Stillman
R. v. Stillman
R. v. Stillman [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607, was a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24 of the Constitution of Canada which allowed for the exclusion of evidence that is obtained in a manner that infringes the Charter...
had created justifiable criticisms, and the majority set out a revised test, consisting of three parts:
- Seriousness of the Charter-Infringing State Conduct, which requires an assessment of whether the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and focuses on the severity of the state conduct that led to the Charter breach (which includes an analysis of whether the breach was deliberate or willful, and whether the officers were acting in good faith),
- Impact on the Charter-Protected Interests of the Accused, which focuses on how the accused person was affected by the state conduct (which includes an analysis of the intrusiveness into the person's privacy, the direct impact on the right not to be forced to self-incriminate, and the effect on the person's human dignity), and
- Society's Interest in an Adjudication on the Merits, which focuses on how reliable the evidence is in light of the nature of the Charter breach.
After applying all three inquiries into the evidence obtained from Mr. Grant, the majority found that the gun should not be excluded as evidence against Mr. Grant.
Binnie J. agreed entirely with the majority's analysis of section 24(2). Deschamps J. agreed that the Collins test needed replacing, but disagreed with the majority's proposed test. Nonetheless, she agreed with the majority's ultimate conclusion that the gun should not be excluded as evidence against Mr. Grant.
Other Matters
The majority disagreed with the lower courts' interpretation of "transfer" for the purpose of transferring a firearm without lawful authorization under section 100(1) of the Criminal Code of CanadaCriminal Code of Canada
The Criminal Code or Code criminel is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law"...
. The majority found that "transfer" in such a context required some type of transaction. Deschampes J. expressely agreed with the majority's analysis. Binnie J. did not comment on the issue, other than stating he agreed with the majority's ultimate disposition of the appeal.
See also
- Criminal law of Canada
- List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
- R. v. SuberuR. v. SuberuR. v. Suberu is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9 and section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court applied the new test for detention created in the companion case of R. v...
[2009] SCJ No. 33 - Companion case to R. v. Grant - R. v. HarrisonR. v. HarrisonR. v. Harrison, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision was a companion case of R. v...
[2009] SCJ No. 34 - Companion case to R. v. Grant
External links
- Full text of R. v. Grant SCC
- Full text of R. v. Grant Ontario CA (CanLII)
- Full text of R. v. Grant SCC (CanLII)