R. V. Grant Case Summary

To begin, the events that took place in this Supreme Court Case occurred on November 17, 2003 involving Donnohue Grant and three Toronto Police Officers, two of which were dressed in plain clothes and in an unmarked car. The area had a history of student assaults, robberies and drug offences which was one of the main reasons for the obvious police presence in the vicinity. The accused was walking down the street very close to school when officer’s Worrall and Forde passed by in their unmarked car. Grant stared at the officers as they drove by him while fidgeting with his coat and pants in a particular way which caught the attention of undercover Worrall and Forde. Officer’s Worrall and Forde then informed officer Gomes that he should have a chat with the suspicious accused.
To continue, Officer Gomes then approached the accused and was the first to converse with Grant. Officer Gomes stood on the sidewalk directly in the middle of the accused’s path in which

he was travelling. Gomez asked Mr. Grant a couple questions like: what he was doing, his name and where he lived. Grant began to act in a nervous manner and seemed to be fidgeting with his pants and jacket. After a short period of time, Officer’s Worrall and Forde approached the pair talking on the sidewalk, identified themselves as officers and then stood behind the pair also obstructing the pathway for Grant. Officer Gomes asked Grant if he had anything that he should not have on him, to which he replied that he had a small bag of weed and a firearm. This obviously prompted the police to arrest and search Grant, and seize the marijuana and a loaded revolver on his person. They read him his rights and advised him of his right to counsel and then took him to the police station.
Essentially, the facts in issue is whether the police make Grant feel as though he was being detained. Detainment does not have to be physical, as long as Grant was being lead to believe he was being detained. This is also known as psychological detainment. Another aspect, was whether or not the police have the right to search and arrest Grant prior to advising him of his right to counsel and lastly if Mr. Grant should be charged for trafficking even though he didn’t transfer possession of the firearm.

Arguments:
In the case of R.

v. Grant the appellant is Donnohue Grant and Her Majesty The Queen. The Defence for Mr. Grant argues was he was detained before he made his inculpatory statements. He believed his liberty to remain or leave was taken away by the police while they conducted the stop. The Officers were blocking his forward path by standing in front of him, and as well as informing him of keeping his hands in in front of him. This was breaching his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 8, 9, and 10(b). This was the argument of psychological detainment in where the person felt he had no choice by the actions of the police. When Grant said he had a bag of marijuana on him they still didn’t caution him and kept asking questions relieving that he admitted to having a firearm in which they searched him than read him his rights. The next argument was about the trafficking charge. Mr. Grant argued that he didn’t change possession of the firearm or hands it didn’t qualify the word and definition of

transfer.
The crowns arguments were Mr. Grant was not detained until the police arrested him because he had a firearm. The police officers were protecting their safety by asking questions and not breaching his liberty. They were engaging in community policing which is dynamic interaction between Police Officers and citizens. They also argued that it was legitimate exercise of investigative police powers which is effective fulfilment of enforcing the law and doesn’t need to exercise a caution because it falls into their duties.
The trial judge found no Charter breach and admitted the firearm, Grant was convicted of five firearms offences. The trial judge had several different reasons on why he didn’t think the rights were breached. This includes the location of where the interaction took place, it was on a main street in Toronto in full view of the public. Also the time of day, it was broad daylight and the usual lunch hour for students. There was no physical force to be specific, there was no pat down search. The length of interaction was within minutes. It was not like an interrogation, and it didn’t take place off the street or in a cruiser. The trial judge said that the accused could have walked away or around the Police Officers and there was no evidence that Mr. Grant felt compelled or had belief in relation to being detained. Finally, the nature of the conversation of the conversation of Constable Gomes, it wasn’t aggressive language and there were no demands or directions given to Mr. Grant.
During the Ontario Court of Appeal judge Laskin J.A held the trial judges conclusion regarding the question of detention weakened multiple mischaracterizations as to what actually occurred, thus a allowing the court to revisit the issue. Laskin J.A concluded that a detention had been constructed with Constable Gomes, before the appellant had made his incriminating statements. The Officers had no reasonable grounds to detain Mr. Grant which meant the detention was arbitrary and breach of section 9 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Laskin J.A. did not deal with section 10(b) and found no breach of section 8 with regards to dealing with the question of exclusion 24(2). Although he determined that the firearm was “derivative” evidence emerging from his self-incriminating statements and would be excluded on that reason alone. However, Laskin J.A. concluded that the admission of the firearm would not excessively undermine trial fairness. He held that the repute of the administration of justice would cause greater damage by the exclusion of the firearm than by its admission. Therefore, the gun was properly admitted to evidence and found that Mr. Grants act of moving the gun from one place to another fell within the definition of “transfer” under section 84 of the Criminal Code which justified the conviction under section 100(1); thus, his appeal to be acquitted from the five firearm charges was denied and upheld with the trial court.
At the Supreme Court of Canada there were three separate judgements out of the seven judges. The Chief Justice McLachlin C.J, and Charron J. (Lebel, Fish, and Abella JJ.) wrote for the majority on the case. Binnie J. and Deschamps J. had partially concurring reasons.
The Chief Justice had two aspects of the case that they specified which were, Breaching the Charter and Exclusion of Evidence. The first aspect of the case was whether the evidence of the firearm was obtained in a manner that breached Mr. Grant’s rights under the Charter. Looking at the interpretive principles within the breach, the constitution guarantees section 9 and section 10 should be interpreted in a more generous rather than a legal way.
Other than the majority Justice Binnie J. argues that by agreeing that Mr. Grant was arbitrarily detained. He continues by saying that the safety of our communities is very important, but we can not give up our rights too random detention by Police based on the fact they may have been involved in criminal activity. There was no information that Mr. Grant had been involved in any criminal activity, other than the observation that he had been fidgeting with his jacket. When Mr. Grant was approached by the Police Officer’s a blockade of sorts was formed in the direction he was walking in on the sidewalk. Binnie J. also says there is a lack of first-hand evidence relating to Mr. Grants ability to choose to walk away. With this argument, a person cannot be detained unless the liberty of the person stopped is aware of the circumstances of the situation they are in. Binnie J. then says that the focus should be exclusively on the state of mind of the accused when it comes to detention and the perception of the Police should be considered as well. Some of the Police factors that Binnie J. wants to consider are a single person being pointed out for a focussed investigation; the police are responsible for our community safety but cannot pose a serious risk to a person’s individual rights, specifically to be left alone. The purpose of a Police Officer on the beat is to investigate suspicious people’s, although there were doubts on weather or not the interaction between Mr. Grant and Police was a true detention or not there was a risk of a firearm. Binnie J. compares our approach to detention to the United States Fourth Amendment jurisprudence which states that a person has the right to go about their business without being arbitrarily stopped by Police. Mr. Grant might have submitted to Police but did not know that he had any other options to consider. Binnie J. would also like to consider an obvious tension that is here

Furthermore justice Deschamps argues that R. v. Collins can no longer be used as a reference. The first factor - whether or not the factors are relevant to the fairness of the trial - is interchangeably used too narrowly, or too broadly. Deschamps believes that the inconsistency of the perspectives of the fairness at a trail can lead to many problems. Also, Deschamps believes that the concept of trial fairness is not precise enough to serve as a reliable guide, and therefore shouldn’t be used. Deschamps wants a new test to be incorporated.

The new test will also consist of three branches: a review of state conduct, the impact of the violation on the charter protected interests, and the public interest in an adjudication on the merits [205].

This new test is an improvement on the old test, which refers to R. v. Collins: The first set of factors are those relevant to the fairness of the trial. The second set of factors concerns the seriousness of the Charter violations as defined by the conduct of the law enforcement authorities. The third set of factors recognizes the possibility that the administration of justice could be brought into disrepute by excluding the evidence despite the fact it was obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter [203]

Deschamps also discussed that she does not fully agree with the emphasis the majority placed on state conduct. Deschamps believed that the Canadian Justice system was slowly starting to resemble the United States Justice system. This would not work as the United States Justice system is built on a completely set of values and case law.

Deschamps made a very solid point when she discussed whether there was a breach in the Charter or not. She stated, “If a judge must decide whether to admit or exclude evidence, a violation of rights must already have been proved” [213]. This is important as it further explained Deschamps’ view on focussing solely on the state conduct. The impact of the Charter violation should be examined, not intrinsic seriousness of the state conduct.

Deschamps then goes on to say that the new approach should not focus on the accused, but rather the public interest in the protection of constitutional rights. The purpose should always have been, and should always be pursuing the public confidence in the administration of justice.

Supreme Court Justice Deschamps believed that admitting the weapon would have a positive effect on the route of the administration of justice. She agreed with the majority’s conclusion, but had a different reasoning. She also agreed with the trial judge for the reasons of: the exchange lasting only a few minutes, the officers were polite and professional with Mr. Grant, and the fact that they were motivated by a desire to take a proactive approach in patrolling a rough neighbourhood with serious problems related to youth crime and safety. Also, the charges are firearms related. It would be impossible to establish guilt without the real evidence. The impact the violation has on the Charter is very limited. Moreover, Deschamps is in complete agreement with the charge of possession of a firearm, and for the purposes of trafficking. She is in complete agreement with the majority.