R v Grant (Supreme Court 2009)
No summary has been written for this decision yet.
Case law
Arrest & Detention
3 reported decisions on this issue.
R v Thompson
[2020] ONCA 264
Ontario Court of Appeal
23 April 2020
possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking
R. v. Thompson
2020 ONCA 264
Ontario Court of Appeal — Strathy C.J.O., Harvison Young and Jamal JJ.A. | April 23, 2020
Background
O'Neil Thompson, a 31-year-old Black man, was sitting in his parked Cadillac at a Brampton shopping plaza at 12:23 a.m. when two police officers arrived. The officers had received a vague anonymous tip about drug dealing involving women going to and from a vehicle. Finding Thompson's car with its engine running and windows tinted, they parked their marked cruisers directly behind his vehicle — boxing him in completely. One officer approached each side of the car, smelled burnt marijuana, spotted a roach on the centre console, and arrested both occupants. A search incident to arrest uncovered 29 grams of cocaine, marijuana, hash, a scale, and $18,000 in cash.
The critical timeline: police arrived and blocked Thompson's car at 12:23 a.m., arrested him at 12:26 a.m. after finding the marijuana roach, but didn't inform him of his right to counsel until 12:44 a.m. — a full 21 minutes after boxing him in. Thompson was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
Issues
- Was Thompson detained when police parked behind his car, or only when formally arrested?
- Did the delay in providing Charter rights breach section 10(b)?
- Should the evidence be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter?
The Detention Decision
The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's finding, ruling that Thompson was arbitrarily detained the moment the first police cruiser parked directly behind his car. Justice Jamal emphasized that detention must be assessed objectively — not based on what the accused actually perceived, but on what a reasonable person in those circumstances would conclude.
The court found the trial judge made a critical error by focusing on Thompson's subjective awareness (he didn't notice the police until they shone flashlights at him) rather than the objective reality that police had eliminated his choice to drive away. A reasonable person whose car was deliberately blocked by police cruisers would conclude they were not free to leave. The court noted that Thompson's status as a racialized person in Brampton was relevant to how a reasonable person in his position would perceive the police conduct.
Since the Crown conceded police had no reasonable grounds to detain Thompson, this detention was arbitrary and violated section 9 of the Charter.
The Systemic Section 10(b) Problem
The court confirmed a "chronic problem" with Peel Regional Police systematically delaying Charter warnings. Officers testified they believed they only needed to provide rights "as soon as practicable" rather than "immediately." Justice Jamal cited a devastating 2017 decision listing dozens of cases where Peel police had breached section 10(b), calling it an "ongoing systemic problem" that made this breach particularly serious.
Key Takeaway
Police cannot box in your vehicle without reasonable grounds — doing so creates an immediate detention that triggers your Charter rights.
This case clarifies that detention is determined objectively based on police conduct, not on whether you personally noticed what was happening. When police eliminate your freedom to leave, that's detention — period.
R v Zack
[1999] O.J. No. 5747
No summary has been written for this decision yet.
General information, not legal advice. No case here has been re-checked for later history — read the decision itself before you rely on it.