Supreme Court of Canada

Indexed as: R. v. Sabiston

Citation: 2024 SCC 33

File No.: 40937

Appeal Heard: October 11, 2024 | Judgment Rendered: October 11, 2024

On Appeal From: Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Coram

Côté, Rowe, Jamal, O'Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.

Judgment Read By: Côté J. (paras. 1 to 2)

Dissent Read By: Moreau J. (paras. 3 to 6)

Majority: Côté, Rowe, Jamal and O'Bonsawin JJ.

Dissent: Moreau J.

Parties

His Majesty The King — Appellant

v.

Stuart Michael George Sabiston — Respondent

Counsel

Erin Bartsch, for the appellant.

Evan Strelioff, for the respondent.

Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.

Headnote

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Remedy — Exclusion of evidence — Search incident to investigative detention — Reasonable suspicion — Discoverability — Police discovering firearm during search incident to arrest of accused for possession of stolen property — Accused charged with firearms offences and bringing application to exclude firearm from evidence on basis that his Charter rights to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure and not to be arbitrarily detained were breached — Trial judge finding that accused's rights were breached but declining to exclude firearm — Trial judge holding that police would have had reasonable suspicion to ground lawful investigative detention and thus incident search and that discoverability of firearm mitigated seriousness of breaches and their impact on accused — Accused convicted of firearms offences — Majority of Court of Appeal holding that trial judge erred in finding that police had reasonable suspicion that property had been stolen that justified investigative detention and incident search and therefore erred in considering discoverability of firearm in her exclusion analysis — Majority conducting fresh exclusion analysis, excluding firearm and entering acquittal — Dissenting judge finding that trial judge was entitled to take into account discoverability of firearm and did not err in overall assessment of whether evidence should be excluded — Conviction restored.

Cases Cited

By Moreau J. (dissenting)

R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 24(2).

Appeal

APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Barrington-Foote, Tholl and Drennan JJ.A.), 2023 SKCA 105, 429 C.C.C. (3d) 273, 543 C.R.R. (2d) 215, 497 D.L.R. (4th) 305, [2023] S.J. No. 322 (Lexis), 2023 CarswellSask 455 (WL), setting aside the conviction of the accused for firearms offences and entering an acquittal. Appeal allowed, Moreau J. dissenting.

Judgment

The judgment of Côté, Rowe, Jamal and O'Bonsawin JJ. was delivered orally by

[1] Côté J. — A majority of the Court is of the view to allow the appeal, substantially for the reasons of Tholl J.A. of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (2023 SKCA 105, 429 C.C.C. (3d) 273).

[2] As a result, the conviction is restored and the file is remanded to the Court of Appeal to address the sentence appeal. Justice Moreau is dissenting.

Dissent

The following are the reasons delivered orally by

[3] Moreau J. — I am in substantial agreement with the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal.

[4] As this Court stated in R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59:

The detention must be viewed as reasonably necessary on an objective view of the totality of the circumstances, informing the officer's suspicion that there is a clear nexus between the individual to be detained and a recent or on‑going criminal offence. [para. 34]

There was no clear nexus between the respondent and the particular crime, namely possession of stolen property (see C.A. reasons, at para. 39).

[5] The majority of the Court of Appeal did not err in excluding the firearm from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the absence of a reasonable suspicion, the firearm would not have been discoverable.

[6] I would dismiss the appeal.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina.

Solicitors for the respondent: Novus Law Group — Wilcox Holash McCullagh, Prince Albert.