R. v. Deenah, 2010 ONCA 775

CITATION: R. v. Deenah, 2010 ONCA 775

DATE: 20101116

DOCKET: C47600

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

O’Connor A.C.J.O., MacFarland and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Ryan Deenah

Appellant

David W. Russell, for the appellant

Karen Papadopoulos, for the respondent

Heard and orally released: November 10, 2010

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice B. Durno of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 23, 2007 and the pre-trial ruling of Justice Mossip on a motion brought pursuant to s. 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] On the facts of this case, we do not find it necessary to address the appellant’s argument under s. 9 of the Charter. The factual basis for the s. 9 argument is exactly the same as the basis upon which the motions judge found there to be an unlawful arrest. We do not think that labelling that arrest as a breach of s. 9 would make any difference to the conclusion reached by the motions judge under s. 24(2).

[2] The appellant argues that the motions judge made two errors in her s. 24(2) analysis. First, he argues that the motions judge’s finding that the officers believed they had grounds to arrest the appellant is inconsistent with her earlier finding that she was not satisfied that the officers had either the subjective or objective components of reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant. The officers’ evidence was clear. They believed they had authority to arrest the appellant. The motions judge accepted their evidence and made findings of credibility in their favour.

[3] The motions judge was very clear in her findings of fact in her s. 24(2) analysis. She found that the officers acted in good faith. Thus, even if there is an inconsistency as argued, we are satisfied that, on reading the motions judge’s reasons as a whole, she did not at any point reject the officers’ evidence that they believed they had the necessary grounds for arrest. Rather, she accepted that evidence. Thus, we would not interfere with the motions judge’s s. 24(2) analysis on this basis.

[4] Finally, we are satisfied that it was open to the motions judge to consider the fact that these events took place in a high crime area as part of her assessment of the police conduct under s. 24(2).

[5] In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

“D. O’Connor A.C.J.O.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”

“David Watt J.A.”