The evidence was ruled admissible and both men were convicted at trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The initial brief detention to screen cars leaving the area was permissible at common law, the judge held – however, the officers intended to search the men from the moment they stopped them, even though they had no reasonable and individualized suspicion they were involved in a crime. Continuing the detention by removing them from the car for the search violated their right to be secure from arbitrary detention and unreasonable search. Despite this, excluding the guns would bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than admitting them, the judge ruled.
Farmer and Clayton appealed. Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Doherty, writing the unanimous judgment, found their Charter rights had been seriously infringed. There was no statutory authority for the roadblock or any reasonable individualized suspicion that could justify an investigative detention, as described by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Mann. Since the roadblock wasn’t used for highway safety, any authority for it would have to find mooring in the ancillary police power doctrine (Waterfield test).
The court was also very critical of police training. The officers failed to consider the relevant factors in assessing the ancillary power doctrine and didn’t balance the demands of their duties against interfering with individual liberties. They also didn’t appreciate the scope of their search powers. Police ignorance of the limits of their ancillary powers was institutional and related to their training.
The handguns were ruled inadmissible, the appeal allowed, the convictions quashed and acquittals were entered on all charges.
The crown appealed this decision. Was it up held?
I was actually quite suprised that the trial judge convicted. The searches seemed a little arbitrary for my liking.
|