Ontario Criminal


Criminal Law

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Arbitrary detention or imprisonment [s. 9]

No evidence to exclude where identification evidence existed regardless of any claimed Charter violation

Knowing that accused was disqualified from driving, officer conducted stationary patrol near accused’s house. Officer followed vehicle associated with accused, discovered that it was owned by accused’s partner after tracing licence plate, and saw that male was driving. Officer stopped vehicle to check licencing as part of “targeted policing” and accused was arrested. Accused was charged with five counts of driving while disqualified. Accused applied to exclude evidence based on arbitrary detention. Application dismissed. This was traffic stop under s. 216(1) of Highway Traffic Act, falling centrally into circumscribed purpose of road safety. Motorist was required to provide identification evidence on traffic stop, but officer knew accused from prior experience. Identification evidence existed regardless of any claimed Charter violation, so there was no evidence to exclude. Officer acted in accordance with his obligations to ensure persons using road were properly licenced and insured. Officer properly used powers given to him under statute. There was no arbitrary detention and accused was not prejudiced by stop.

R. v. Gore (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 13830, 2018 ONSC 4551, Rick Leroy J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?
RESULTS ❯