![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Supreme_court_of_Canada_in_summer.jpg/640px-Supreme_court_of_Canada_in_summer.jpg&w=640&q=50)
R v Grant
Supreme Court of Canada case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
R v Grant | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Hearing: April 24, 2008 Judgment: July 17, 2009 | |
Full case name | Donnohue Grant v Her Majesty The Queen |
Citations | 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 SCR 353 |
Docket No. | 31892 [1] |
Prior history | Judgment for the Crown in the Court of Appeal for Ontario. |
Ruling | appeal allowed in part (acquittal allowed on one charge, convictions continued on remaining charges) |
Holding | |
(1) A detention is defined as suspension of an individual's liberty by significant physical or psychological restraint, with various factors helping to determine whether there was a psychological detention. (5:2)
(2) To determine if the admission of evidence obtained by a breach of an accused person's Charter rights would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, courts must consider the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct, the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected rights of the accused, and society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits. (6:1) (3) For the purpose of transferring a firearm without lawful authorization under section 100(1) of the Criminal Code, "transfer" requires some type of transaction. (7:0) | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin Puisne Justices: Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | McLachlin CJ and Charron J (paras 1–149), joined by LeBel, Fish, Abella JJ |
Concurrence | Binnie J (paras 150–184) |
Concurrence | Deschamps J (paras 185–230) |
Rothstein J took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |