R. v. Gagnon
- Citation
- 2016 SCC 6
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 24 February 2016
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal as of Right to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered (appeal Dismissed)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 24 February 2016
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal as of Right to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered (appeal Dismissed)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the detention was unlawful under s.9 but that, after weighing the s.24(2) factors, the unlawful detention did not warrant exclusion of the evidence; the appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
Frédéric Gagnon
Appellant Counsel: Mélanie Martel; Denis BarretteHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Simon Blais; Benoît Lauzon03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal as of Right to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered (appeal Dismissed)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant's detention was arbitrary under s.9 of the Charter
- 02
Whether evidence obtained following the detention should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the police detention was unlawful and arbitrary under s.9 and that the evidence obtained should be excluded under s.24(2).
- Respondent
- The Crown conceded detention was unlawful but argued that weighing the s.24(2) factors did not favour exclusion and the conviction should be upheld.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.9
Section 9 protects individuals against arbitrary detention
- 02
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.24(2); R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32
Section 24(2) requires exclusion analysis balancing seriousness of state conduct, impact on Charter-protected interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the detention was unlawful under s.9 but that, after weighing the s.24(2) factors, the unlawful detention did not warrant exclusion of the evidence; the appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed
- Appeal dismissed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 24 February 2016
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 24 February 2016
R. v. Gagnon Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2016-02-24 Neutral citation 2016 SCC 6 Report [2016] 1 SCR 25 Case number 36581 Judges Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell On appeal from Quebec Notes SCC Case Information: 36581 Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Gagnon, 2016 SCC 6, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 25 Appeal heard: February 23, 2016 Judgment rendered: February 23, 2016 Docket: 36581 Between: Frédéric Gagnon Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Official English Translation Coram: Cromwell, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (para.
1) Cromwell J. (Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. concurring) R. v. Gagnon, 2016 SCC 6, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 25 Frédéric Gagnon Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Gagnon 2016 SCC 6 File No.: 36581. 2016: February 23. Present: Cromwell, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention — Remedy — Exclusion of evidence — Detention of accused by police unlawful — Weighing of relevant factors not favouring exclusion of evidence — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 9 , 24(2) . APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Doyon, Kasirer and Vauclair JJ.A.), 2015 QCCA 1138, [2015] AZ-51190659, [2015] J.Q. no 6206 (QL), 2015 CarswellQue 6218 (WL Can.), affirming the accused’s conviction. Appeal dismissed. Mélanie Martel and Denis Barrette, for the appellant. Simon Blais and Benoît Lauzon, for the respondent. English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by [1] Cromwell J. — This is an appeal as of right. We all agree, essentially for the reasons given by Doyon J.A. of the Quebec Court of Appeal, that it should be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Mélanie Martel, Joliette; Ouellet Nadon & Associées, Montréal. Solicitor for the respondent: Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales du Québec, Laval and Montréal.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.