Donald W. Johnson

The accused, Sauve and Stewart, were charged with various weapons offences after police seized a handgun and ammunition from a backpack carried by Stewart.

The Crown alleged they jointly possessed and transferred the firearm.

The court found insufficient evidence that Stewart knew the backpack contained a firearm, resulting in his acquittal on all counts.

For Sauve, the court found he was wilfully blind to the fact he was picking up a firearm, establishing possession.

However, the Crown failed to prove he knew about the ammunition, possessed it for a dangerous purpose, or knew it was obtained by an offence.

Sauve was found guilty of careless transport and transferring a prohibited firearm, as he handed the backpack to Stewart knowing it contained a gun.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought pre-trial applications alleging breaches of their Charter rights and seeking the exclusion of a handgun and ammunition found in a backpack.

The police detained one of the applicants under the Customs Act after observing suspicious activity near the St. Lawrence River.

The court found the detention was lawful under s. 9 of the Charter, but the subsequent warrantless search of the backpack violated s. 8 as it did not meet the standard for a safety search.

The court also found breaches of the applicant's s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breaches were not wilful or flagrant, the evidence was reliable and discoverable, and its exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was ruled admissible against both applicants.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained during a smuggling investigation on the St. Lawrence River.

Police officers detained the applicant on a dock but failed to inform him of the reasons for his detention before arresting him for obstruction when he attempted to walk away.

The court found the detention was arbitrary and the subsequent arrest unlawful, violating sections 9 and 10(a) of the Charter.

Consequently, the search incident to arrest violated section 8, and the ID, currency, and fingerprints seized from the applicant were excluded under section 24(2).

However, the court found no section 8 violation regarding the search of a nearby boat that yielded marijuana, as the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vessel.