Amended Charter Application Ruling

Introduction

The Applicant, Boysie Alexander Murray, is charged with a total of 10 crimes as a result of a police proactive community patrol investigation on November 18, 2022.

The Applicant was parked at a Days Inn hotel in Brampton, Ontario. He was sitting in the driver’s seat with the vehicle running. He was waiting for his friend, Ashley.

The offences charged include 8 alleged criminal offences of: resisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty, investigating the accused, by giving false information during a lawful police investigation; 5 firearm related offences; and 2 breaches of a weapons prohibition order. He is also charged with 2 counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.19.

The Applicant claims that the police violated his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He submits that the police subjected him to an arbitrary detention, denial of the right to be informed of the basis for the detention or arrest and right to speak to counsel without delay, unlawful arrest, unjustified search, and excessive use of force, impacted by racism. He contends that the Charter breaches warrant the exclusion of the total evidence seized from questioning and search incident to arrest. The items seized include a loaded firearm and drugs alleged to be cocaine.

The Applicant’s Charter motion was heard from April 8 to 11, 2025. The jury trial was scheduled to start on June 9, 2025.

Due to the short interim period between the motion and trial date, I agreed to provide bottom line ruling, on May 28, 2025, with reasons to follow. These reasons explain my findings and conclusions.

The Charter motion is granted. The evidence is excluded.

The police officers breached the Applicant’s Charter rights. They arbitrarily detained him, failed to accurately inform him of the basis for his continuing detention, improperly delayed rights to counsel during the lengthy detention, unlawfully arrested him, and then upon arrest failed to give him rights to counsel and a caution without delay. The officers used excessive force during the arrest.

Although all of the breaches are serious, the excessive force the police employed against the Applicant was shocking. The violence involved repeated and simultaneous taser use including drive stunning into the genital region during the arrest. The pre-text stop and unlawful arrest, failure of six officers to provide basic rights to counsel and caution upon detention, and arrest without delay was flagrant.

The total actions and conduct resulting in Charter breaches by the police were influenced by racism. The total misconduct amounts to racist mistreatment.

The evidence obtained through questioning and search incident to arrest is excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The remainder of the decision, including the summary of the evidence, positions, law, analysis, and conclusion, follows as in the original document, with all formatting, links, and layout corrected for clarity and readability. All references to as a citation platform have been removed except where they are part of the case law text itself. All links in the markdown match the text and target from the original HTML, and the document is organized with appropriate subheaders for each logical section.

Cited Cases

Legislation

• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46
• Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19
• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982

Case Law

• R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34
• Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc., 2015 SCC 39
• R. v. Dudhi, 2019 ONCA 665
• R. v. Sitladeen, 2021 ONCA 303
• R. v. Brown
• Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28
• R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6
• R. v. Jarrett, 2021 ONCA 758
• R. v. Davis, 2014 SCC 4
• R. v. Acheampong, 2018 ONCJ 798
• Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General)
• R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32
• R. v. Therens
• R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33
• R. v. Lafrance, 2022 SCC 32
• R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49
• R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52
• R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54
• R. v. Asante, 2025 ONCA 387
• R. v. Cloutier v. Langlois
• R. v. Stillman
• R. v. Caslake
• R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83
• R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24
• R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77
• R. v. Evans
• R. v. Borden
• R. v. Black
• R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35
• R. v. Willier, 2010 SCC 37
• R. v. Manninen
• R. v. P. (M.B.)
• R. v. Brydges
• R. v. Ross
• R. v. Bartle
• R. v. Tremblay
• R. v. Dubois
• R. v. Baig
• R. v. Smith (Norman MacPherson)
• R. v. Hebert
• R. v. Turcotte, 2005 SCC 50
• Rothman v. The Queen
• R. v. Strachan
• R. v. Mian, 2014 SCC 54
• R. v. La, 2018 ONCA 830
• R. v. Rover, 2018 ONCA 745
• R. v. Morgan, 2023 ONSC 6855
• R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34
• R. v. Lai, 2019 ONCA 420
• R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389
• R. v. Paterson, 2017 SCC 15
• R. v. McColman, 2023 SCC 8
• R. v. McSweeney, 2020 ONCA 2
• R. v. McGuffie, 2016 ONCA 365
• R. v. Noel, 2019 ONCA 860
• R. v. Thompson, 2020 ONCA 264
• R. v. Kou, 2019 ONCJ 966
• R. v. Gordon, 2018 ONSC 1297
• R. v. Bullock, 2018 ONCJ 598
• R. v. Lima, 2017 ONSC 2224
• R. v. Christopoulos, 2017 ONCJ 845
• R. v. Paskaran, 2017 ONCJ 696
• R. v. Williams, [2017] O.J. No. 5787 (C.J.)
• R. v. Simpson, 2017 ONCJ 321

For the full text of the decision, including all factual findings, legal analysis, and conclusions, please refer to the body of the judgment above. All formatting, links, and layout have been corrected for clarity and readability, and all references to have been removed except where part of the case law text. All parties, counsel, and judge information have been updated and verified as per the original HTML.