ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Between:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
ACHCHUCHAN SUNTHARALINGAM
Defendant
Counsel:
Jason Mitschele and Blair Moran, for the Crown
Adam Weisberg and Cassandra Geeta, for the Defendant
HEARD: February 23, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION to exclude evidence
Overview:
1Police serve and protect our communities through both targeted and general policing. They often run toward unknown dangers to execute their duties. We expect the police to use their instincts, training, common sense, and lived experience to prevent crime, keep our communities safe, and keep themselves safe. But like all public officials, police are accountable to the public and must comply with our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all laws in executing their duties, including when they testify in court.
2This maintains the rule of law – the idea that no one is above the law and that laudable ends do not justify illegal means. Maintaining the rule of law is the cornerstone of democracy that transcends political affiliation. It strengthens the public’s faith in the administration of justice, and in the police, who are an integral and important part of that system. As Justice Doherty stated in Brown v. Durham Regional Police Force, “The efficacy of laws controlling the relationship between the police and the individual is not […] measured only from the perspective of crime control and public safety. We want to be safe, but we need to be free.”1 The role of the court is to be a check and balance for these important principles.
3In this case, two well-meaning rookie officers, patrolling together on a summer night in 2023 to serve and protect St. James Town and Regent Park, went to 550 Ontario Street to check in on the address that had been the site of a shooting two months prior. They observed a grey Toyota stopped in front of the building. Mr. Suntharalingam was a back seat passenger. They knew they had no basis to approach the car so discussed what legal avenue would give them access. Luckily when they ran the plates they found out that it was a rental vehicle and the more senior officer suggested doing a “SLIM” stop under the Highway Traffic Act2 to check licensing and insurance. The police engaged their lights and approached both the driver and the front seated passenger. The officer on the passenger side believed he saw a small bag of cannabis fall out of the passenger’s hat which triggered a search under the Cannabis Control Act.3 Ultimately the police found controlled substances in a satchel in the front passenger footwell where Mr. Maxwell was sitting and a loaded firearm and fentanyl in Mr. Suntharalingam’s cross-body satchel. Mr. Suntharalingam was charged with two counts of drug trafficking and one count of possessing a loaded firearm.
4Mr. Suntharalingam alleged that the officers illegally detained and searched the vehicle and its occupants because the three men, who were neither the subject of a police investigation nor doing anything out of the ordinary, were racialized. He applied to exclude all evidence in this blended Charter voir dire and judge-alone trial. The parties agreed that if I found that race impacted the officers’ decision to detain Mr. Suntharalingam and his friends, then the evidence should be excluded. They also agreed that if I did not exclude the evidence, the Crown would meet its burden on all charges and I would enter verdicts of guilty on each charge.
5Based on the evidence as a whole, I exclude all evidence located in the Toyota and on Mr. Suntharalingam, and acquit Mr. Suntharalingam of all charges. Race clearly informed the officers’ decision to detain and the officers were not forthright in their testimony about their observations. Even if race did not inform the officers’ decision to detain, this was a clear pretext stop that also warrants excluding the evidence.
6I delivered my oral ruling on April 9, 2026. These are my written reasons.
Analysis:
The detail on the night of August 29, 2023 was to engage in community and proactive policing
7The star witnesses for the Crown were PC Ladher and PC Bozanis. On the night of August 29, 2023, both officers testified that they were detailed to engage in a community patrol to increase police visibility in Regent Park and St. James Town. At that time, PC Ladher had been on the force for one year and PC Bozanis, six months. Both officers had responded to a call on June 30, 2023at 550 Ontario Street, where a shooting had taken place. Both officers testified that at the beginning of their shift, Field Intelligence Officer Hayes at 51 Division briefed them on the June 30, 2023 incident. The officers were told that two suspects had emerged from a Black SUV but did not know if that vehicle had been idling in front of the building, or whether it was a rental. The officers were also aware that the areas of Regent Park and St. James Town had recent gang activity. Both officers were shown photos of known gang members out on bail. They described the men as being of a variety of different races, with PC Ladher stating that some were “even white.”
The circumstances of the stop
8PC Ladher testified that on the night of August 29, 2023 just after 11:30 p.m. he and PC Bozanis were driving around St. James and Regent Park, and turned onto 550 Ontario Street, where they observed a grey Toyota idling. PC Ladher believed it to be idling because the lights and wipers were on. Just prior to seeing the vehicle, they had been discussing the June 30, 2023 shooting. PC Ladher stated that he ran the car’s plate, as he often did on a community patrol, and found out it was a rental. In direct examination PC Ladher said that the fact that the Toyota was idling and was a rental vehicle sparked his interest. He said the two officers wondered who the occupants were and whether the driver had valid insurance and a valid licence. He explained that this was because he had experience where someone would rent a vehicle but let someone else drive it. PC Ladher also had the shooting in the back of his mind. He was worried that this was another vehicle waiting for a targeted shooting. He had understood that the suspects in the June shooting arrived in a vehicle, waited until the intended victim exited 550 Ontario Street, and attempted to shoot him. That said, PC Ladher agreed that he was not investigating the shooting from June, nor gathering intelligence for any criminal investigation. He was on community patrol.
9PC Ladher agreed on cross-examination that it was not unusual for him to come across rental cars while patrolling and there was nothing suspicious about a rental car in and of itself. However, when challenged elsewhere about the basis for wanting to approach the Toyota, PC Ladher made the remarkable claim that he would stop all rental cars under his HTA powers if he had time to do so.
10PC Ladher said that after he ran the plates, PC Bozanis drove the cruiser south along Ontario street toward the dead end. The Toyota was facing north. The cruiser passed by the Toyota – within three feet of it, passenger side to passenger side – and then parked just south of it. He said he conveyed to PC Bozanis his intention to check on licencing. PC Ladher agreed in cross-examination that 550 Ontario Street was a nine-storey building of mixed income with numerous people, many of whom may not have vehicles. He agreed that someone could be waiting outside the building simply to pick a tenant up. However, when responding, PC Ladher stated “correct, but you also never know.” Despite his concerns about another targeted shooting, PC Ladher agreed that he had no criminal basis to approach the vehicle.
11PC Ladher testified that once they decided to approach the Toyota, PC Bozanis did a three-point turn and positioned the cruiser facing its headlights towards the passenger side of the Toyota. PC Ladher said that they immediately activated the cruiser lights. He insisted that he could not see the race of the occupants in the vehicle until he was about three feet away on foot. He said it was raining and dark, and he could only see shadows. Even when the cruiser faced the Toyota head on as it travelled south on Ontario street from Prospect Avenue, PC Ladher said he could not tell the race of the occupants. He said he also could not tell their races as they drove by the Toyota, when PC Ladher agreed that he was passenger to passenger, and about three feet away, even with the streetlights. PC Ladher agreed that neither the Toyota nor the police cruiser had tinted windows. Contrary to the evidence of the driver of the Toyota, he said that did not shine his flashlight into the vehicle as he passed by and was not sure if his window was open to better see inside the car.
12PC Ladher insisted that knowing that the occupants were brown and black men or tied in some way to a gang would not have heightened his interest. When it was suggested that he would not have been suspicious of an idling vehicle with two white clergymen sitting inside, PC Ladher disagreed.
PC Bozanis – the encounter was a result of purposeful policing at a known location
13PC Bozanis had a different version of why these officers were on Ontario Street. PC Ladher’s evidence suggests that it was a result of random community patrolling. PC Bozanis testified that he and PC Ladher discussed the shooting in June and decided to purposely go to 550 Ontario Street to take a look at the building. Their goal was to check if everything was okay. PC Bozanis’ concern was based on the briefing from the FIO, his knowledge of the June 30 event as an officer responding to that call, and his understanding that the area had a potential for gang violence between Regent Park’s Halal gang and St. James Town’s Bleecker Street Gang.
14According to PC Bozanis, he drove along Prospect Street and turned left (south) onto Ontario Street. He testified that he saw the Toyota idling with headlights and wipers on, near the building where the shooting had happened earlier that summer. PC Bozanis stated that he recalled the previous incident also involved an idling vehicle – something he believed he found out shortly after responding to that call in June. As the cruiser passed by the Toyota, PC Bozanis testified for the first time at trial that he observed rental car markings on its side. He did not recall whether he or PC Ladher ran the plates or whether it was based on the front plate or back plate. PC Bozanis did however recall talking about the shooting as they were passing the Toyota and PC Ladher suggesting that they stop the car to check licencing and insurance. He believed the plates had already been run when PC Ladher suggested this.
15PC Bozanis claimed that he did not know who was in the car as they passed because he was focusing on looking at the vehicle. It was not until he got out of the cruiser and was about three feet away from the Toyota when he could see the front passenger. When he approached that side, the passenger’s window was open about four inches.
16In cross-examination PC Bozanis testified that before engaging the cruiser lights and approaching the Toyota, he had parked the cruiser in the driveway of the school across from 550 Ontario Street. At first he said the Toyota was parked north of the cruiser, suggesting that the cruiser’s headlights would not have been shining right into Toyota. However, the video footage from Officer Gorbell’s body-worn camera showed that the driveway was lined up with the Toyota such that the police cruiser’s headlights would have shone directly into the Toyota. PC Bozanis agreed with this description after being shown the body-worn camera footage. Despite acknowledging that this was how the cruiser was positioned, PC Bozanis was adamant that he did not look into the car, did not see into the car despite it not having tinted windows, had no idea of the race of any of the occupants, and later approached the Toyota blindly despite the ability to have seen into the car before.
17PC Bozanis also adopted his preliminary inquiry testimony that:
They had an interest in vehicle;
They were trying to figure out a legal reason to engage with the occupants to speak with and ID the driver;
They were not sure of the criminal grounds to do so and knew there were no criminal grounds;
They wondered if they could stop the vehicle for idling but did not know how long it had been there; and
The reason that they came up with was that it was a rental so they were going to check to see if the documents matched the driver.
Mr. Suntharalingam was arbitrarily detained
18All Canadians have a right to be free from arbitrary detention (s. 9, Charter). Mr. Suntharalingam was arbitrarily detained because the decision to stop the Toyota was race-based and/or because it was an unlawful pretext stop.
The police concocted a reason to approach the Toyota
19The Crown argued that the officers detained the driver of the vehicle for a dual purpose – to check licencing and insurance under the HTA and for a criminal purpose. I agree that s. 216(1) of the HTA authorizes a police officer to stop a vehicle for highway regulation and safety purposes. Even random stops where the officer lacks reasonable suspicion are authorized, so long as the officer has a subjective regulatory or safety purpose in mind, the stop is limited to the roadside, and it is brief.4 It is permissible for police to intend, within the confines of a stop and detention authorized by s. 216(1) of the HTA, to use the opportunity to further the legitimate police interest of gathering intelligence in their investigation of criminal activity.5
20To determine if there was a legitimate dual purpose, the facts and the officers’ true purpose must be examined phase-by-phase: the timing of actions, what the police did before articulating any HTA reason, and whether the officers sought a safety-related verification or rather a fishing expedition.6 The problem in this case is that the officers did not have a true subjective regulatory purpose in mind. That was clear from PC Bozanis’ evidence and PC Ladher’s reluctant admission that he saw the vehicle, thought about the shooting two months prior, and wanted to know who the occupants of the vehicle were. The timing of the inquiry on the mobile data terminal log and PC Bozanis’ testimony, including adopting what he said at the preliminary inquiry make it clear that the plate search was run after they were trying to figure out a way to approach what they believed was a suspicious vehicle. Luckily the plate indicated that it was a rental and PC Ladher suggested that using the HTA was their in.
21Neither officer was conducting a criminal investigation about the prior shooting or gathering intelligence about it. PC Bozanis and PC Ladher concocted a way to investigate the idling vehicle to prevent a further shooting. While I understand that they believed this to be part of their mandate to engage in proactive policing, their conduct was not Charter-compliant as it must always be, no matter how meritorious the intention, and how successful the result. Even if race was not a factor and I accepted PC Ladher’s evidence that he would stop every rental car, it cannot possibly be Charter compliant for police to detain every rental car idling in front of 550 Ontario Street because of fear of another shooting.
22Further, the HTA does not authorize officers to conduct more intrusive examinations or to pursue unrelated groundless criminal investigations as a pretext. A stop motivated, in whole or in part, by an ulterior criminal-investigative purpose becomes arbitrary and in breach of s. 9 of the Charter.7 Where an officer uses the HTA as a Trojan horse to investigate criminality, including by targeting rentals as a routine investigative method, the detention is arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter.
Mr. Suntharlingam was detained when the driver was
23The Crown argued at the hearing that even if the driver was arbitrarily detained, Mr. Suntharalingam was not initially detained until PC Bozanis declared that he had seen cannabis in the front seat passenger’s hat and commenced a CCA search. I disagree with this submission. PC Ladher and PC Bozanis detained all occupants of the Toyota when they engaged their cruiser lights and approached the Toyota. When Officer Ladher approached the Toyota, PC Bozanis approached the passenger side after shining his flashlight into the car, including into the back where Mr. Suntharalingam sat. Officer Ladher announced to the entire car, though talking to the driver:
The reason you guys are being stopped is because I ran the plate, came back to a rental. I just want to make sure the vehicle’s insured and you have a driver’s licence.
24After talking about rental cars in the area, he asked the driver if he was from the area. PC Ladher then stated through the open driver side window:
So just so you’re aware, this area has been having a lot of high crime lately. So we’re here enforcing to make sure nothing bad is happening, essentially, I’m not saying you’re doing anything bad, but I’m just saying if it’s a rental car in an area like this, we just want to makes sure everyone’s safe and nothing’s going on, right?
25In these circumstances, I find that Mr. Suntharalingam, a brown man, would not have believed that he was free to exit the vehicle and leave. As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Le8:
We do not hesitate to find that, even without these most recent reports, we have arrived at a place where the research now shows disproportionate policing of racialized and low-income communities (see D. M. Tanovich, “Applying the Racial Profiling Correspondence Test” (2017), 64 C.L.Q. 359). Indeed, it is in this larger social context that the police entry into the backyard and questioning of Mr. Le and his friends must be approached. It was another example of a common and shared experience of racialized young men: being frequently targeted, stopped, and subjected to pointed and familiar questions. The documented history of the relations between police and racialized communities would have had an impact on the perceptions of a reasonable person in the shoes of the accused.
26The recognition of the experience of racialized young men with the police is reflected in Mr. Gebremariam’s evidence at trial, which I accept. Mr. Gebremariam, the driver of the Toyota who was not found to possess drugs or firearms on his person or in his vehicle, testified that he had already been stopped by police twice in the month prior to PC Ladher stopping him. The first time police pulled him over for allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign. With him in the car were two other black males. The second time, an officer pulled him over for allegedly making an improper right turn at a red light. He was with Mr. Suntharalingam on this occasion. A single officer stop grew to three officer stop for no apparent reason. Two officers stood by while one officer looked around the vehicle a bit before ticketing Mr. Gebremariam. Mr. Gebremariam stated that both times he did not believe he committed an offence. The officers let him go with a warning the first time and the ticket was dismissed in court the second time.
The detention was in part informed by the race of the occupants of the Toyota
27The objective evidence from the MDT log of when the plates were run in relation to when PC Bozanis activated the cruiser lights and engaged the in-car camera supports PC Bozanis’ version of the sequence of events. I accept his evidence over that of PC Ladher. I find what occurred was as follows:
The officers discussed the shooting and went to 550 Ontario Street to take a look. They saw a vehicle idling in front of the site of the shooting as they turned onto Ontario Street. They had been talking about the shooting that occurred two months prior and that was top of mind. PC Bozanis drove slowly past the vehicle. They saw the race of at least the front passenger. They backed into a driveway directly perpendicular to the Toyota, with headlights shining into it, to discuss what to do. They saw three racialized men. They were concerned about another shooting. They ran the plate and determined it was a rental vehicle. Then PC Ladher came up with the idea of checking licensing and insurance as the pretext for detaining the car.
28Both officers’ denial of knowing the race of the occupants of the Toyota lacks credibility. When Officer Bozanis turned onto Ontario Street the cruiser headlights would have shone into the front of the Toyota. As they passed by the vehicle within three feet of it, Officer Ladher who was the passenger in the cruiser, would have seen the race of at least Mr. Maxwell, the Toyota front seated passenger. Indeed, he said that when he was on foot and was three feet away from the Toyota he was able to observe the race of the occupants. The street was well lit. The Toyota’s windows were not tinted. PC Bozanis testifying that he did not observe the occupants as he drove by or as he sat directly across from it does not make any sense. He stated that even though he had the shooting in the back of his mind, his focus was on the vehicle and not its occupants. If thwarting a shooting was the concern, people shoot, not vehicles.
29Mr. Gebremariam said that he could see the race of the officers when they passed by and that he locked eyes with the brown officer. He believed he saw a flash of light but could not say whether the “brown officer” (PC Ladher) had a flashlight. PC Ladher’s body-worn camera footage shows that he had to close his window before exiting the cruiser, suggesting that his window was down three inches which would have enabled him to see into the Toyota as they passed by. I accept the Mr. Gebremariam could see that PC Ladher was brown, and if he could see PC Ladher, PC Ladher would have been able to see him.
30The officers’ denials, in the face of objective evidence that both officers would have seen into the vehicle before they decided to detain the Toyota, is troubling. It suggests that both officers knew that race informed their decision to detain the occupants of the Toyota and knew it was wrong. Even if race may not have consciously informed their decision to detain at the time, the officers must have realized it later and tried to distance themselves from it. The denials also means the officers were dishonest with the court, which can never be condoned. Further, it is not believable that PC Ladher would detain every rental vehicle that idled in front of the nine-storey building. The additional factor of race is logically what distinguished the vehicle Mr. Suntharalingam was in. This was an improper factor to rely on even if the officers were acting in good faith and the infringement was not deliberate or the product of systemic or institutional abuse.9 When the police use race to any degree in suspect selection or treatment, there can be no reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to detain the suspect and the decision amounts to racial profiling.10
31Whether PC Bozanis and PC Ladher detained the occupants of the Toyota due to their race or it was a pretext stop unrelated to race, the detention was arbitrary contrary to s. 9 of the Charter.
The Grant analysis favours exclusion
32The parties agreed that if I found that race wholly or partially motivated the stop, the evidence should be excluded. I agree. A race-based stop was a serious violation of Mr. Suntharalingam’s Charter rights that strikes at the core value of s. 9. The court must distance itself from PC Bozanis and PC Ladher’s behaviour, however well meaning they were in executing their duties to protect the community. This is especially the case when the officers were not forthright with the court. Conduct of state actors that misleads the court can serve to seriously undermine the administration of justice.11
33Even if race was not involved, the fact that this was a textbook pretext stop also favours exclusion. I rely on Justice Barnes analysis in Odle.12 Section 24(2) of the Charter states that where “a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a matter than infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” The first step – that evidence was obtained that infringed Mr. Suntharalingam’s rights – is not disputed. But for the racially motivated/pretext stop, the police would not have located any of the evidence.
34In deciding whether the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, I consider and balance three factors. First, was the Charter-infringing conduct serious. Second, what was the impact of the breach on the right of Mr. Suntharalingam to be free from arbitrary detention. Third, I consider society’s interest in adjudicating this case on the merits.13
35The Charter-infringing conduct was serious. The occupants of the Toyota were doing nothing more than sitting outside of a building, waiting for a friend. The officers invented a reason to approach the vehicle, worried that three racialized men sitting in a car might be waiting to shoot someone leaving the building, as happened two months prior. The officers knew they did not have a legitimate reason to approach. There can be no description of this Charter-infringing conduct other than serious. This consideration favours excluding the evidence because condoning such behaviour would shake the public’s confidence in the justice system, including an essential part of it, the police.
36The impact of the breach on Mr. Suntharalingam was serious. He was detained without cause and with police knowingly inventing a reason to detain – something that strikes at the core of what s. 9 aims to protect against. To admit the evidence would weaken the right to be free from arbitrary detention, signalling to the public that only some members of society deserve or enjoy the right, and it is up to each individual police officer to decide who is worthy.
37That said, society would have a strong interest in adjudicating this case on the merits. The Crown has a strong case and without this evidence, no case. Gun violence and fentanyl trafficking is extremely harmful to our communities.
38The final step is to balance these factors. In this case, the police completely invented a reason to approach Mr. Suntharalingam and his friends, and then tried to cover it up later by giving evidence at trial that was not credible. They also removed a dangerous firearm and drugs from the streets and in that immediate moment, made the community safer. However, as I have stated before, the rule of law demands that the ends cannot justify the means, and the court must dissociate itself from the officers’ conduct in this case.
Conclusion:
39Mr. Suntharalingam was arbitrarily detained and I exclude all evidence against him. I acquit him of all charges.
40Mr. Suntharalingam complained of other Charter violations – like being given “soft rights” to counsel instead of the proper rights to counsel as s. 10 of the Charter demands. I need not comment on those arguments given my findings with respect to s. 9.
P.T. Sugunasiri J.
Released: June 10, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Suntharalingam, 2026 ONSC 2869
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-10000001
DATE: 20260610
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
ACHCHUTHAN SUNTHARALINGAM
REASONS FOR DECISION
P.T. Sugunasiri J.
Released: June 10, 2026
Footnotes
- Brown v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 43 O.R. (3d) 223, 131 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (C.A.) at para. 79.
- R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 216.
- Cannabis Control Act, 2017, S.0. 2017, c. 26, Sch. 1, s. 12.
- R. v. Gonzales, 2017 ONCA 543, 136 O.R. (3d) 225 at para. 55; R. v. Mayor, 2019 ONCA 578, 378 C.C.C. (3d) 453 at paras. 6, 9.
- Gonzales at para. 59; R. v. Barker, 2025 ONSC 3356 at para. 119.
- Mayor at para. 10; Brown at para. 40; Gonzalez at para. 67.
- R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257 at p. 1287; Mayor at paras. 6-10; Gonzales at paras. 34-40, 49-79; R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615 at p. 624; R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 851 at para. 3.
- R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 692 at para. 97.
- R. v. Patterson, 2017 SCC 15, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 202 at para. 44.
- R. v. Dudhi, 2019 ONCA 665, 147 O.R. (3d) 546 at paras. 59, 63.
- R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494 at para. 26.
- R. v. Odle, 2020 ONSC 3991, 164 W.C.B. (2d) 423 at paras. 68-72.
- R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353 at para. 71.