S. 9

Question 1

R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. | s. 9 not 24(2)

Answer 1

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The particular characteristics or circumstances of the individual, when relevant, including age; physical stature; minority status; level of sophistication.

• Psychological detention exists where an individual is legally required to comply with a direction or demand by the police, or where “a reasonable person in [that individual’s] position would feel so obligated” and would “conclude that he or she was not free to go” (Grant, at paras. 30-31)

Question 2

R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34

Answer 2

• Racial profiling, police trespassing, fishing expedition

Also - at the ONSC evidence of Blading is accepted.

* Acting in bad faith/racial profiling can lean towards exclusion on 24(2)

Question 3

R. v. Lafrance, 2022 SCC 32

Answer 3

• The execution of a warrant at a residence where police also take control of the person can itself support the finding of detention.
• Detained despite being told he was free to go – still psychological detention.
• Emphasis on 3rd Grant factor
• Racial lens PLUS personal factors
• The factors set out in the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Moran (1987), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (Ont. C.A.) are no longer good law, even as a benchmark for assessing detention pursuant to Grant.

Question 4

R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33 | s. 9

Answer 4

Mere questioning =/= Detention

• Para 23: Not every interaction between an individual and the police will constitute a detention within the meaning of the Charter, “even when a person is under investigation for criminal activity, is asked questions, or is physically delayed by contact with the police.”

Question 5

R. v. Noor, 2022 ONCA 338 | s. 9

Answer 5

Investigative Detention standard = reasonable suspicion

• The reasonable suspicion standard demands less because “‘[s]uspicion’ is an expectation that the targeted individual is possibly engaged in some criminal activity”, and such suspicion will be “reasonable” where it is supported by objectively articulable grounds.
• In this case the officer knew the suspect fit the description of someone previously seen in the area with a firearm

Question 6

R. v. Hussey-Rodrigues, 2022 ONSC 1569

Answer 6

• The police may detain a person for investigative purposes if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is connected to a crime and that the detention is reasonably necessary.
• That reasonable suspicion must be based on objectively discernible facts.
o R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, at paras. 34, 43.
• Justification to detain is based on totality of circumstances – Clayton & Mann

• During the execution of a search warrant police are entitled to segregate the occupants of the premises to ensure officer safety, to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence, and to maintain the integrity of the search. But once the location is secure, those individuals are free to move or leave.
o R. v. McSweeney, 2020 ONCA 2

Question 7

R. v. Bzezi, 2018 ONSC 170 | s. 9

Answer 7

• Traffic stop, license suspended, possible wanted party = grounds to detain while waiting for back up/NO s. 9 BREACH.
-s. 216 of HTA

Question 8

R. v. Vine, 2022 ONSC 3297

Answer 8

• Impaired, cuffed while provided ASD pre-arrest, no good reason, results excluded

Question 9

R. v. Pascal

Answer 9

The Crown must disclose the “fruits of the investigation” and any “obviously relevant” information.

Includes criminal record.