Indigenous appellant pulled over for riding bike without a light. Police found an outstanding warrant, and appellant was arrested and searched, revealing cellphone and drugs in breach of his recognizance. He was questioned about the bicycle, Chartered, cautioned and placed in police vehicle. Defence argued trial judge erred as appellant was unlawfully detained only because he was Indigenous. All other evidence obtained was then tainted.
Held: Appeal allowed; convictions quashed, no new trial.
Trial judge did not err in finding that police had not been racially profiling, but erred in analysis of s 24(2) on s 10(a) and 10(b) breaches. Per Mian, 2014 SCC 54, “[a]ppellate intervention is warranted where a trial judge has failed to consider the proper factors in relation to s 24(2) or has made an unreasonable finding”. Trial judge erred in finding the nexus between bike breaches and cellphone/drug breaches “too remote”. Strong temporal connection.
D. Hatch – Defence Counsel