R. v. Fyfe, 2023 ONCA 715
[51] I begin with first principles. Section 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, authorizes the arrest without warrant of a person who has committed an indictable offence, or who on reasonable grounds the arresting officer believes has committed or is about to commit such an offence. “Reasonable grounds” in s. 495(1)(a) requires reasonable and probable grounds: R. v. Loewen, 2011 SCC 21, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 167, at para. 5.
[52] In assessing whether there were reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the court must determine whether the arresting officer had subjective reasonable and probable grounds on which to base the arrest and then whether those grounds were justifiable from an objective point of view: R. v. Storrey, 1990 CanLII 125 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241, at pp. 250-51.
[53] The focus for the subjective part of the test is on the bona fides of the arrest – whether the arresting officer “honestly believe[s] that the suspect committed the offence”: R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54, 475 D.L.R. (4th) 575, at para. 72(2). Typically, this involves a determination of the arresting officer’s credibility. That said, the evidence of subjective grounds for an arrest does not necessarily come from a single officer. An arrest may involve multiple officers, and occur in a dynamic situation as new information rapidly comes to light. The evidence of various officers may, as in this case, be contradictory in certain respects. As such, evidence about the subjective grounds for arrest may come from one or more officers and other sources, including the surrounding circumstances: see e.g., R. v. R.M.J.T., 2014 MBCA 36, 303 Man. R. (2d) 292, at paras. 60-63; R. v. Dill, 2009 ABCA 332, 464 A.R. 92, at paras. 6-7; R. v. Messina, 2013 BCCA 499, 346 B.C.A.C. 179, at paras. 25-26.
[54] How an officer specifically articulates the grounds, that is the officer’s explanation of the grounds for the arrest, while relevant to their credibility, is not determinative. The question for determination at the first stage is whether the officer or officers at the time the arrest was made had an honest belief that the person committed (or was about to commit) an offence: R. v. Canary, 2018 ONCA 304, 361 C.C.C. (3d) 63, at para. 21; R. v. Bush, 2010 ONCA 554, 101 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 38. To paraphrase the Supreme Court in R. v. Clayton, 2007 SCC 32, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 725, at para. 48, Charter breaches are determined not on the basis of what police officers intend to do or think they can do, but on what they actually do at the time the arrest takes place.
[55] At the second step – the evaluation of whether the arrest was justified, and whether there were objectively reasonable and probable grounds – it must be objectively established that the reasonable and probable grounds did in fact exist: that “a reasonable person, standing in the shoes of the police officer, would have believed that reasonable and probable grounds existed to make the arrest”: Storrey, at p. 250.
[56] While there are reported cases from our court that speak of an assessment of “[t]he totality of the circumstances relied upon by the arresting officer” at the second, or objective, stage (see e.g., R. v. Lawes, 2007 ONCA 10, at para. 4 (emphasis added); see also R. v. Griffith, 2021 ONCA 302, 408 C.C.C. (3d) 244, at para. 27, citing Lawes), other authorities cast the net more broadly to move away from the arresting officer’s subjective belief and reasons for the arrest, and to require the court to consider all of the circumstances reasonably known to the arresting officer.
[57] In Canary, Fairburn J.A. (as she then was) did not tether the review for objective reasonableness to the officer’s articulated grounds for arrest. Rather, she referred to the court’s consideration of “the objectively discernible facts through the eyes of a reasonable person with the same knowledge, training and experience as the officer”. She stated at para. 22:
When considering whether an officer’s subjective belief is objectively reasonable, the court looks at the objectively discernible facts through the eyes of a reasonable person with the same knowledge, training and experience as the officer: R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 220, at paras. 45-47. Determining whether sufficient grounds exist to justify an exercise of police powers is not a “scientific or metaphysical exercise”, but one that calls for the application of “[c]ommon sense, flexibility, and practical everyday experience”: R. v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250, at para. 73.
[58] In R. v. Brown, 2012 ONCA 225, 286 C.C.C. (3d) 481, at para. 14, this court stated that “there must be something in the conduct observed by the officer, placed in the context of the rest of the circumstances, that lends some objective justification or verification to the officer’s belief”, and explained that otherwise, “the scope of the police power to arrest would be defined entirely by the police officer’s perception of the relevant circumstances”.
[59] The focus is not on the officer’s subjective perception, but on what a reasonable person standing in the shoes of the officer would have perceived. As this court stated simply in Bush, at para. 38, the officer’s belief must be supported by “objective facts”.
[60] To restrict the evaluation of the circumstances to an assessment of the reasonableness of only the officer’s articulated grounds and not all of the circumstances known to the officer would have the obtuse result of rewarding an officer’s tunnel vision. Officers are expected not to shut their eyes to relevant circumstances, ignore appropriate inquiries or fail to take into consideration exculpatory, neutral or equivocal information: R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 220, at para. 33. They must take account of all available information and disregard only information reasonably believed to be unreliable: R. v. Golub (1997), 1997 CanLII 6316 (ON CA), 34 O.R. (3d) 743, at p. 751, leave to appeal refused, [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 571.
[61] In challenging the objective reasonableness of an arrest, it is not unusual for an accused to point to some fact or circumstance that was known to the officer that would undermine the objective reasonableness of the arrest: see e.g., Canary, at paras. 28-29; R. v. Henareh, 2017 BCCA 7, at para. 52; R. v. Chang, 2019 ONCA 924, at paras. 4-6. Focusing on the officer’s articulated grounds and not considering the broader circumstances would undermine the objective part of the review of reasonable and probable grounds.
[62] Finally, the appellant’s contention that the objective component of reasonable and probable grounds must focus only on an officer’s articulated grounds is inconsistent with the exhortations in the authorities to consider “the totality of the circumstances” (Shepherd, at para. 21); “the cumulative effect of the totality of the circumstances, bearing in mind any exigent circumstances” (R. v. Desilva, 2022 ONCA 879, 421 C.C.C. (3d) 177, at para. 58); “[t]he totality of the circumstances known to police” (R. v. Orr, 2021 BCCA 42, 399 C.C.C. (3d) 441, at para. 78); and “the facts as a whole, seen through the eyes of a reasonable person who has the same knowledge, training and experience as the arresting officer” (Canary, at para. 30). Returning to Tim and the passage relied on by the appellant to suggest that it is the officer’s articulated grounds that must be objectively justifiable, that passage must be read in the context of what follows. Jamal J. states at para. 24:
The arresting officer must subjectively have reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, and those grounds must be justifiable from an objective viewpoint. The objective assessment is based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the arrest, including the dynamics of the situation, as seen from the perspective of a reasonable person with comparable knowledge, training, and experience as the arresting officer. [Emphasis added.]
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire