Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Generation and Deployment of Common Law Police Powers by Canadian Courts and the Double-Edged Charter

  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) has been relied on increasingly by Canadian courts to bolster common law police powers, often at the expense of due process. Ostensibly, the courts have shown more concern with the administration of the limits of policing than with the delineation of civil liberties. In this article, we trace the evolution of the interpretation of the Charter in this context, with early decisions suggesting a reluctance to create ex post facto police powers. The article then outlines the acceleration of judicial proliferation of common law police powers in Canada, cloaked in the veil of the Charter. In other words, unauthorized police conduct is legitimized by the courts on an ad hoc basis, so long as it is ultimately justifiable. We then discuss the findings of our own research into this phenomenon and comment on the possible implications that increasingly expansive common law police powers created by courts have had on due process in Canada, and the administrative role of the Supreme Court of Canada in mobilizing civil rights protections in the direction of state surveillance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Recently, the Court has articulated instances where race-based decision-making does not amount to investigative detention and is arbitrary under Section 9 of the Charter in R v Le (2019). In this case, a slim 3-2 majority noted that the focus of Section 9 analysis should be on “how the police behaved and, considering the totality of the circumstances, how such behavior would be reasonably perceived” (¶ 116), and that race alone as a justification for detention would mean that “the police had no reasonable suspicion of recent or ongoing criminal activity” (¶ 133).

References

  • Asselin, A. (2013). The exclusionary rule in Canada: Trends and future directions. QSPACE. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1974/8244.

  • Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional rights and their limitations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, M., & Kremnitzer, M. (2005). Judicial activism: A multidimensional model. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence,18(2), 333–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corry, O. (2012). Securitisation and ‘Riskification’: Second-order security and the politics of climate change. Millennium, 40(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811419444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, D. F. (1985). Unreasonable search and seizure: A comment on the Supreme Court of Canada Judgment in Hunter v Southam Inc., case comment. Criminal Law Quarterly,27(4), 450–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 87–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, B., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2009). Foucault’s law. New York: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, C. (2018). Sword or shield? The influence of international organisations in counterterrorism law and policy making. Brazilian Journal of Criminal Sciences, Dossier ‘Los retos de la política legislativa penal a comienzos del siglo xxi”—RBCCRIM nº 147 (septiembre/2018).

  • Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology,51(4), 605–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, P. W., & Thornton Bushnell, A. A. (1997). The charter dialogue between courts and legislatures (or perhaps the charter of rights isn’t a bad thing after all). Osgoode Hall Law Journal,35(1), 75–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, P. W., Thornton Bushnell, A. A., & Wright, W. K. (2007). Charter dialogue revisited—Or “Much Ado about Metaphors”. Osgoode Hall Law Journal,45(1), 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jochelson, R. (2008). Crossing the rubicon: Of sniffer dogs, justifications, and preemptive deference. Review of Constitutional Studies,13(2), 209–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jochelson, R., & Doerksen, M. (2016). The Supreme Court of Canada presents: The surveillant charter and the judicial creation of police powers in Canada. In R. Lippert, et al. (Eds.), National security, surveillance, and terror: Canada and Australia in comparative perspective (pp. 75–97). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jochelson, R., & Ireland, D. (2019). Privacy in Peril Hunter v Southam and the Drift from reasonable search protections (pp. 1–224). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jochelson, R., et al. (2017). Criminal law and precrime: Legal studies in Canadian Punishment and surveillance in anticipation of criminal guilt. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jochelson, R., Kramar, K., & Doerksen, M. (2014). The disappearance of criminal law: Police powers and the supreme court. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippert, R. (2016). Governmentality analytics and human rights in criminology. In L. Weber, E. Fishwick, & M. Marmo (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of criminology and human rights (pp. 80–90). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden, M. (2011a). Empirical data on S. 24(2) exclusion under R. v. grant. Criminal Reports,78(2), 278–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden, M. (2011b). Marshalling the data: An empirical analysis of Canada’s s.24(2) case law in the wake of R. v. Grant. Canadian Criminal Law Review,15(2), 228–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacNeil, W. P. (2005). Precrime never pays! ‘Law and economics’ in Minority Report. Continuum,19(2), 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlin, B. (1991). The charter: A new role for the judiciary? Alberta Law Review,29(3), 540–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlin, B. (2001). The role of the courts in the new democracy. In J. E. Magnet (Ed.), Constitutional law of Canada: Cases, notes and materials (8th ed., pp. 117–129). Edmonton, AB: Juriliber.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean, C., Patterson, A., & Williams, J. (2009). Risk assessment, policy making and the limits of knowledge: The precautionary principle and international relations. International Relations,23(4), 548–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, A., & Warrne, I. (2020). Governing liberty through accountability: Surveillance reporting as technologies of Governmentality. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09490-9.

  • Murchison, Melanie. (2017). Making numbers count: An empirical analysis of “Judicial Activism” in Canada. Manitoba Law Journal,40(3), 423–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neocleous, M. (2007). Security, liberty and the myth of balance: Towards a critique of security politics. Contemporary Political Theory,6(2), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, Y., & Shany, Y. (2003). The Israeli unfinished constitutional revolution: Has the time come for protecting economic and social rights? Israeli Law Review,37(2–3), 299–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stribopoulos, J. (2005). In search of dialogue: The supreme court, police powers and the Charter. Queen’s Law Journal,31(1), 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valverde, M. (2010). Specters of Foucault in law and society scholarship. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,6(1), 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, N., & Murphy, T. (2013). Making history: Academic criminology and human rights. The British Journal of Criminology,53(4), 568–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2007). Pre-crime and post-criminology? Theoretical Criminology,11(2), 261–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Case Law

  • Cloutier v Langlois, [1990] 1 SCR 158, 105 NR 241.

  • Hunter v Southam, [1984] 2 SCR 145, Alta LR (2d) 193.

  • R v A.M., 2008 SCC 19.

  • R v Caslake, [1998] 1 SCR 51, 123 Man R (2d) 208.

  • R v Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, [2013] 3 SCR 220.

  • R v Clayton, 2007 SCC 32, [2007] 2 SCR 725.

  • R v Collins, [1987] 1 SCR 265, 33 CCC (3d) 1.

  • R v Dedman, [1985] 2 SCR 2, 20 CCC (3d) 97.

  • R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77, [2014] SCR 621.

  • R v Godoy, [1999] 1 SCR 311, [1998] SCJ No 85.

  • R v Golden, 2001 SCC 83, [2001] 3 SCR 679.

  • R v Hufsky, [1988] 1 SCR 621, 40 CCC (3d) 398.

  • R v Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18, [2008] 1 SCR 456.

  • R v Knowlton, [1974] SCR 443, 10 CCC (2d) 377.

  • R v Ladouceur, [1990] 1 SCR 1257, 56 CCC (3d) 22.

  • R v Law, 2017 BCSC 1535.

  • R v Le, 2019 SCC 34.

  • R v MacDonald, 2014 SCC 3, [2014] 1 SCR 37.

  • R v MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50, [2013] 3 SCR 250.

  • R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 SCR 59.

  • R v Mellenthin, [1992] 3 SCR 615, 55 CCC (3d) 530.

  • R v Orbanski and R v Elias, 2005 SCC 37 [2005] 2 SCR 3.

  • R v Paterson, 2017 SCC 15, 347 CCC (3d) 280.

  • R v Saeed, 2016 SCC 24, [2016] 1 SCR 518.

  • R v Stenning, [1970] CR 631, 10 DLR (3d) 224.

  • R v Stillman, [1997] 1 SCR 607, 113 CCC (3d) 321.

  • R v Waterfield, [1964] 2 CCC 286, [1964] 3 All ER 659.

Legislation

  • Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

  • Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19.

  • Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 46.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the Legal Research Institute at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Law for support of this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, 224 Dysart Road R3T2NT, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Richard Jochelson, David Ireland & Erika Brenner

  2. Calgary, AB, Canada

    Ryan Ziegler

  3. Criminal Justice, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Kirsten Kramar

Authors
  1. Richard Jochelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Ireland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ryan Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erika Brenner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kirsten Kramar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Jochelson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jochelson, R., Ireland, D., Ziegler, R. et al. Generation and Deployment of Common Law Police Powers by Canadian Courts and the Double-Edged Charter. Crit Crim 28, 107–126 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09491-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09491-8

Search

Navigation