L'implication générale d'un individu avec la criminalité organisée n'est pas une assise permettant aux policiers de le détenir à des fins d'enquête, vu qu'il n'est soupçonné d'un crime précis

R v Sabiston, 2023 SKCA 105

Lien vers la décision

[39]           Here, the officers testified only to a general involvement of Mr. Sabiston with gang criminality. They did not articulate any other suspected offence or criminal behaviour, upon which to particularize their suspicion. The only offence tethered to Cst. Ethier’s subjective belief was possession of stolen property. While I acknowledge that the standard of reasonable suspicion deals with possibilities, rather than probabilities of a crime being committed (Chehil at para 27), a sufficient nexus is still required between a reasonable suspicion and a “particular crime” (Mann at paras 34 and 45). There is no such nexus here. The fact that Mr. Sabiston was on a weapons prohibition and a gang member does not reasonably tie Cst. Ethier’s subjective belief to a stolen property offence. The officers did not testify to having knowledge of Mr. Sabiston’s criminal record, beyond an awareness that he was on a weapons prohibition. They did not give evidence that Mr. Sabiston had a history of property or theft related criminality. There was no report on the date in question that he was involved in such criminality.