Judicial Interpretation Of Section 9 Charter Rights
I. Introduction: Section 9 of the Charter
Text of Section 9
“Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.”
Purpose
Section 9 is designed to protect individuals from arbitrary state action, ensuring that any detention or imprisonment is:
Justified by law
Not capricious or unreasonable
Procedurally fair
Key Principles
Arbitrariness test: Whether the detention is without reasonable cause, legal authority, or procedural justification.
Scope: Covers physical detention, imprisonment, and some forms of state-induced coercion or restriction.
Interaction with Section 10: Ensures rights on being informed of reasons for detention and prompt access to counsel.
II. Landmark Case Studies on Section 9
1. R. v. Grant, 2009
Facts
Police stopped Grant on the street without a warrant and conducted a search.
Grant argued detention was arbitrary under Section 9.
Legal Issue
Whether police detention without reasonable grounds violated Section 9.
Judgment
Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the detention was arbitrary.
Detention is arbitrary if it lacks a valid legal purpose or reasonable suspicion.
Significance
Established the modern test for arbitrary detention: purpose, statutory authority, and reasonableness.
2. R. v. Therens, 1985
Facts
Accused was taken into police custody for a blood alcohol test after a car accident.
Legal Issue
Was the detention for procedural purposes arbitrary?
Judgment
Court held that detention for a procedurally lawful purpose (administering a test under statutory authority) does not violate Section 9.
Significance
Clarified that detention is only arbitrary if not justified by law.
3. R. v. Mann, 2004
Facts
Police stopped Mann on the street based on vague suspicion and conducted a pat-down.
Legal Issue
Whether investigative detention without clear reasonable grounds violates Section 9.
Judgment
Supreme Court ruled detention must be supported by reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity.
Detention for general inquiry or curiosity is arbitrary.
Significance
Strengthened the requirement of reasonable suspicion for any investigative detention.
4. R. v. Caslake, 1998
Facts
Accused was detained by police while police investigated a robbery; accused claimed detention was arbitrary.
Legal Issue
Whether investigatory detention without formal arrest but with limited freedom violates Section 9.
Judgment
Court distinguished detention from arrest.
Detention is arbitrary if the police exercise their authority beyond legal limits.
Significance
Reinforced limits on police powers during investigative detentions.
5. R. v. Oickle, 2000 (Custodial Detention and Interrogation)
Facts
Accused was interrogated for several hours under police custody.
Argued detention was arbitrary and violated Section 9.
Legal Issue
Does prolonged detention for interrogation constitute arbitrary detention?
Judgment
Court held detention for investigative purposes under lawful authority is not arbitrary, but coercion or deception may infringe Section 9.
Significance
Clarified the boundary between lawful investigative detention and abuse of authority.
6. R. v. Amato, 1999
Facts
Police detained Amato without arrest to question about a minor offense.
Legal Issue
Whether detention without formal charges is arbitrary.
Judgment
Detention must be minimally intrusive, justified, and reasonable.
Arbitrary detention occurs when detention exceeds purpose or lacks legal justification.
Significance
Emphasized proportionality in detention to avoid Section 9 violations.
III. Key Judicial Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Case Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Detention must have legal authority | Therens | Statutory or lawful basis needed for detention |
| Reasonable suspicion required | Mann | Police cannot detain arbitrarily or based on hunches |
| Purpose must be clear | Grant | Detention must serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose |
| Limits on investigative detention | Caslake | Police powers cannot exceed legal limits |
| Custodial interrogation not automatically arbitrary | Oickle | Lawful detention for questioning is valid, coercion is not |
| Proportionality of detention | Amato | Detention must be minimally intrusive and justified |
IV. Comparative Analysis
| Case | Detention Type | Violation Found? | Key Takeaways |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grant | Street stop & search | Yes | Arbitrary if no legal purpose or reasonable suspicion |
| Therens | Custodial BAC test | No | Lawful purpose validates detention |
| Mann | Investigative street stop | Yes | Must have reasonable suspicion |
| Caslake | Investigatory detention | Yes | Police cannot exceed authority |
| Oickle | Custodial interrogation | No | Lawful detention fine, coercion prohibited |
| Amato | Minor offense questioning | Yes | Detention must be proportional and justified |
V. Conclusion
Section 9 protects against arbitrary state detention or imprisonment.
Courts have clarified that detention is lawful only if it is:
Authorized by law
Reasonable and justified
Proportionate and minimally intrusive
Case law emphasizes the balance between state interests in law enforcement and individual rights under the Charter.
Arbitrary detention is a serious violation of fundamental rights, and courts have consistently held police accountable for overreach.
RELATED Blog
comments