R. v. Decorte

R. v. Decorte

First Nations Constables appointed under s.54 of the Police Services Act and pursuant to the Anishinabek agreement possessed the powers of police officers for their specified duties and, together with the authority in s.48 of the Highway Traffic Act and the Criminal Code definition of "peace officer", were lawfully...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 SCC 9
Parties
Appellant: Cecil Decorte; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.9 Arbitrary Detention, First Nations Policing, R.i.d.e. Roadside Stops, Definition and Powers of Peace Officers, Police Services Act S.54 Appointments
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Charter S.9 Arbitrary Detention First Nations Policing R.i.d.e. Roadside Stops Definition and Powers of Peace Officers Police Services Act S.54 Appointments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecil Decorte

Appellant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether First Nations Constables may lawfully set up R.I.D.E. operations outside the reserves they primarily serve
  2. 2 Whether such First Nations Constables are "peace officers" within the meaning of the Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was arbitrarily detained under s.9 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

First Nations Constables appointed under s.54 of the Police Services Act and pursuant to the Anishinabek agreement possessed the powers of police officers for their specified duties and, together with the authority in s.48 of the Highway Traffic Act and the Criminal Code definition of "peace officer", were lawfully empowered to conduct a R.I.D.E. roadside stop and to demand a breath sample; the appellant was not arbitrarily detained under s.9 of the Charter and the evidence was properly admitted, so the conviction was valid and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for failure to comply with a recognizance affirmed