SCC Case Information
Donnohue Grant v. Her Majesty the Queen
(Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Canadian charter - criminal - Criminal law, Detention.
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Arbitrary Detention - Enforcement - Offences - Possession of firearm for the purpose of transferring it - Elements of offence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unconstitutionally obtained and otherwise undiscoverable conscriptive evidence can be admitted under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms even if its admission would adversely affect the fairness of the trial - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding that the offence of “possession of a firearm for the purposes of trafficking” in s. 100 of the Criminal Code requires only an intent to move a firearm from place to place without lawful authority, and does not require any intent that possession of the firearm change hands in the future - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 9, 24(2) - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, ss. 84, 100.
The Appellant, Donnohue Grant, was stopped by a uniformed officer as he was walking. The uniformed officer stood in his path, told him to keep his hands in front of him, and began questioning him. Two plainclothes officers who had originally noticed the Appellant arrived and stood behind the other officer. The Appellant was asked for identification and was then asked if he had ever been arrested and whether “he had anything on him that he shouldn’t”. The Appellant said that he had a small amount of marijuana and then, after being asked if he had anything else, he admitted that he also had a loaded revolver. The Appellant was arrested, the revolver seized and he was charged with five firearms offences. The Appellant brought a motion to exclude the revolver claiming that his Charter rights had been violated. The trial judge found that there was no violation of the Appellant’s Charter rights. The Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to one year imprisonment in addition to the six months’ credit for pre-trial custody. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal finding that although there was a violation of the Appellant’s s. 9 Charter right to be free from arbitrary detention, the evidence was admissible.