Evidence suggested officer made mistake untainted by racial profiling

Criminal Law - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Arbitrary detention or imprisonment [s. 9]

Accused was stopped for talking on cell phone while driving. When accused was stopped he had cell phone in his lap and police officer observed accused had been drinking alcohol . Accused eventually provided two breathalyser samples that exceeded legal limit. Auxiliary officer in passenger seat of police cruiser did not see cell phone. Cell phone was not investigated after stop and there was nothing in officer’s notes about cell phone. At trial, accused denied he had been talking on cell phone and alleged he was stopped because he was black. Trial judge found officer was mistaken in her belief she had seen cell phone, that this was instance of racial profiling and that accused was arbitrarily detained in violation of his rights under s. 9 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Trial judge excluded breathalyzer results from evidence and acquitted accused. Crown appealed. Appeal allowed and new trial ordered. Trial judge’s finding that officer was honest witness, but nonetheless engaged in racial profiling, was not irreconcilable, but was a stretch. There was persuasive evidence suggesting that officer made mistake untainted by racial profiling. Trial judge erred in using failure to investigate cell phone as evidence supporting racial profiling given police had no authority to examine or seize cell phone, accused, who had burden of proving Charter violation, failed to produce phone records and there was no logical connection between failure to search cell phone and conclusion that officer engaged in unconscious racial profiling. Trial judge misapprehended auxiliary officer’s evidence. Trial judge’s misapprehensions of evidence were vital to his conclusion of racial profiling. Even if there was breach of Charter s. 9, without racial profiling there was probability evidence would not have been excluded.

R v. Byrnes (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 2724, 2019 ONSC 1287, D.E. Harris J. (Ont. S.C.J.); reversed (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 6888, 2018 ONCJ 278, D.F. McLeod J. (Ont. C.J.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

How lawyers brought down internet trolls — without ever uncovering their identities

Ontario’s house-poor homeowners could be tempted by fraud and real estate lawyers are on high alert

After viral video, lawyers confirm: Yes, there is a rule against walking across the highway

Insured died before signing settlement agreement — so is it enforceable?

Social media, publicity adds pressure for cash-strapped litigants

Norton Rose Fulbright launches legal tech platform to build bespoke business apps

Most Read Articles

Could lawyers’ conduct widen rift with medical evaluators?

New trial ordered for expelled members of Ethiopian Orthodox Church

Insured died before signing settlement agreement — so is it enforceable?

After viral video, lawyers confirm: Yes, there is a rule against walking across the highway