Fleming v Ontario

Last updated
Fleming v Ontario
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 21, 2019
Judgment: October 4, 2019
Full case nameRandolph (Randy) Fleming v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, et al.
Citations 2019 SCC 45
Docket No.38087 [1]
Prior historyJudgment for Ontario in the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Court membership
Chief Justice: Richard Wagner
Puisne Justices: Rosalie Abella, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Clément Gascon, Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown, Malcolm Rowe, Sheilah Martin
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by Côté J

Fleming v Ontario, 2019 SCC 45 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the powers of police officers under the common law ancillary powers doctrine. The Court unanimously held that police officers did not have the authority to arrest someone engaging in lawful conduct to prevent a breach of peace by others.

Contents

Background

The Ancillary Powers Doctrine

The Ancillary Powers Doctrine is a common law rule that assumes that when an obligation is imposed on the executive, they also implicitly gain the 'ancillary' powers necessary to execute it. In the context of police powers, this doctrine is applied through the 'Waterfield Test', a test which originated in the UK but versions of which have since been adopted by the courts of many other common law jurisdictions, including Canada.

Under the test, a police officer could take an action to interfere with a person's liberty or privacy if:

  1. they were acting in the execution of their duties under common law or statute, and
  2. the conduct constituted a justifiable interference with the individual's liberty or privacy [2]

Factual background

A group of First Nations protesters who had long disputed the Canada's claim to a area of land in Caledonia, Ontario, known as Douglas Creek Estates (D.C.E), occupied the land in a 2006 protest, and also hung indigenous flags across an adjacent street. The land was purchased by the government in the June of that year, who subsequently permitted the occupation. Which in turn caused many residents, who were angry with the protests and the government response to them, to organize their own counter-protests.

In the past, many of these protests had become contentious, and had led to violent clashes between the two groups. When the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) became aware of another "flag rally" counter-protest, in which protesters hoped to carry the Canadian flag near a site on the street adjacent to the D.C.E, they developed an operational plan to manage it. They barred the counter-protesters from entering the D.C.E and planned to keep both groups of protesters separate from each other.

On the day of the flag rally, Randy Fleming - flying the Canadian flag - was walking north along said street, hoping to join the rally. When he saw a police car coming along the street, he jumped on the property to avoid it. His stepping on the D.C.E. caused a reaction among a group of 10-12 occupying protesters stationed about 100 metres away, who began walking towards him. An OPP officer immediately placed Fleming under arrest, he resisted but was escorted to the police cruiser, and then transported to a jail cell. About 2 and half hours later he was released and charged with obstructing a peace officer. The Crown eventually withdrew the charge around 19 months after it was laid. Fleming sued the province of Ontario and 7 police officers for assault and battery, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment. [3]

In lower courts

The trial judge found that the province had infringed Fleming's rights, and found it guilty of battery, wrongful arrest, and false imprisonment. The judge ordered the province to pay over $139,000 in general damages to Fleming, over $150,000 in legal cost, and an additional $5,000 in punitive damages over their breach of his Charter rights. In her ruling, the trial judge stated that the OPP should not have arrested Fleming, who had done nothing unlawful, over a fear that there would a breach of peace. In her ruling she accepted that such arrests might sometimes be lawful, but that in this case the risk of a breach of peace was not substantial, not imminent, and that the police had other reasonable alternatives like setting up a buffer zone. [4]

On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned her decision, holding that the police had the power to perform arrests to prevent an anticipated breach of peace under the ancillary powers doctrine. According to the Court of Appeal, the judge had erred in holding there was no imminent risk of a breach of peace because she considered the conflict from a narrow perspective, rather than seeing it in the broader context of the past clashes in Caledonia. The Court cleared the province of all wrong-doing, with the exception of battery, for which it ordered a new trial to determine if excessive force had been used. [5]

Supreme Court Judgement

Justice Suzanne Côté, writing for a unanimous court, overturned the Court of Appeals' decision, and held that the province was guilty of wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, and battery.

The Court, in applying the Ancillary Powers Doctrine test for police powers, considered:

  1. Whether the police conduct at issue fell within the general scope of a statutory or common law police duty, and
  2. whether the conduct involved a justifiable exercise of police powers associated with that duty.

The Court held that while preventing a breach of peace, even through arrest of someone not engaging in unlawful activities, undoubtedly fell within the general scope of police duty, the conduct could not pass muster in the second step. [6] [7]

The Court noted that in the second step courts must assess whether the police conduct was reasonably necessary to fulfil the police duty in question. And in analyzing whether it was, it should assess three factors, previously identified in R v MacDonald. Namely, the importance of the performance of the duty to the public good, the necessity of the interference with individual liberty for the performance of the duty, and the extent of the interference with individual liberty. [8]

The power to arrest law-abiding individuals to prevent a breach of peace, Côté J wrote, failed because the second branch of the test must be applied with rigour to protect the rights and liberty of individuals against unnecessary encroachment by the state. She wrote that the standard of justification must be commensurate with the fundamental rights at stake, and that the bar was particularly high for a power like the one before the Court, for a number of reasons. First, because it intruded on the liberty of someone who had not nor was suspected of engaging in any unlawful activity. Secondly, because the proposed power was inherently preventive in nature, and those types of powers must be recognized by courts with great caution due to their potential to sanction profound infringements on liberty for little societal benefit. And finally, since the purported power would not typically result in criminal charges, judicial oversight would be limited. [9]

Côté J noted that there were few state actions that interfered with liberty as significantly as arrest, and that allowing police officers to arrest someone acting lawfully over the apprehended actions of another would severely undermine the public's expectation of being able to live their lives free of coercive state conduct. She also stated that the mere high effectiveness of arrest could not compensate for its blunt nature, and that there were less intrusive alternatives available to the police to exercise their duty, citing that in this case a buffer zone could have been set up to avoid confrontations like the one that occurred. [10] [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

Human rights in the United Kingdom concern the fundamental rights in law of every person in the United Kingdom. An integral part of the UK constitution, human rights derive from common law, from statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998, from membership of the Council of Europe, and from international law.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies rights upon arrest or detention, including the rights to consult a lawyer and the right to habeas corpus. As a part of a broader range of legal rights guaranteed by the Charter, section 10 rights may be limited by the Oakes test and/or the notwithstanding clause. However, section 10 has also spawned considerable litigation, and has made an impact in numerous cases.

R v Waterfield [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 is an English Court of Appeal decision, a court of binding precedent, outlining the modern limits of the law that authorises a police officer to stop a person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec, making the law system is bijural, as it is used throughout Canadian provinces except for Québec, which uses private law. In nine of Canada's ten provinces and three territories, tort law originally derives that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter, guarantees the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment. Section nine states:

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

<i>Ngan v R</i> 2007 New Zealand Supreme Court decision

Kevin Jack Ngan v The Queen is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which was handed down on 13 December 2007. The decision held that evidence of a crime discovered incidental to an inventory search of a car involved in an accident was admissible in court. The court considered the scope and application of Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), regarding the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

Gary McHale is a right-wing Canadian political activist, noted for involvement in the Grand River land dispute.

<i>R v Grant</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the Collins test.

<i>R v Harrison</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Harrison, 2009 SCC 34 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision was a companion case of R v Grant, and applied the Supreme Court's new test to determine when evidence obtained from a Charter breach should be excluded.

<i>Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of punitive damages in contract. The case related to the oppressive conduct of an insurance company in dealing with the policyholders' claim following a fire. According to the majority, "[t]his was an exceptional case that justified an exceptional remedy."

<i>Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on arbitration and bias in administrative law. The court held that it was patently unreasonable for the Minister of Labour to appoint retired judges as arbitrators in labour disputes without considering their expertise in labour relations under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitrations Act.

Refusing to assist a police officer, peace officer or other law enforcement officer is an offence in various jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions use the terminology '"refusing to aid a police officer" or "failure to aid a police officer".

In Canada, the duty to consult and accommodate with Indigenous Peoples arises when the Crown contemplates actions or decisions that may affect Aboriginal or Treaty rights. This duty arises most often in the context of natural resource extraction such as mining, forestry, oil, and gas.

<i>R v Fearon</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77 is a leading section 8 Canadian constitutional law case, concerning the constitutionality of warrantless law enforcement searches of the contents of a cell phone incident to arrest.

<i>Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya</i> Canadian legal decision

Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held, in a 5–4 decision, that a private corporation may be liable under Canadian law for breaches of customary international law committed in other countries.

<i>R v Golden</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Golden, 2001 SCC 83 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on limitations to the power of police officers to perform strip searches. The Court held that the common law rule allowing police officers to perform warrantless searches incident to arrest must be limited in relation to strip searches, citing their heightened intrusiveness and impact on the Charter protected privacy interests of the accused.

<i>Kosoian v Société de transport de Montréal</i> Canadian legal decision

Kosoian v Société de transport de Montréal, 2019 SCC 59 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the public law immunity of police officers and public bodies. The Court unanimously held that police officers who enforced non-existent laws did not enjoy civil or criminal immunity over their actions.

<i>R v Stairs</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Stairs, 2022 SCC 11 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court established new standards for searches of a person's home after they have been arrested. At issue in the case was whether the traditional common law power of Search Incident to Arrest, which allows police officers to engage in warrantless searches of lawfully arrested persons, was compliant with section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it related to searches of the home.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 38087 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ↑ Fleming SCC at para 46.
  3. ↑ Fleming SCC at paras 9-22.
  4. ↑ Fleming SCC at paras 23-28.
  5. ↑ Fleming SCC at paras 29-35.
  6. ↑ Fleming SCC at para 69.
  7. ↑ Fleming SCC at para 88.
  8. ↑ Fleming SCC at para 47.
  9. ↑ Fleming SCC at para 75-84.
  10. ↑ Fleming SCC at para 65-67.
  11. ↑ Fleming SCC at para 91.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.