The Supreme Court of Canada cases that allegedly determine whether or not RIDE programs are legal were determined in 1985 and 1988.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1985/1 ... cs2-2.html
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1 ... 1-621.html
While the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the program several justices were in dissent in 1985, including the Chief Justice.
They were in dissent because they are aware other arguments can be made to prove the RIDE program is unlawful.
In this thread I intend on proving just that.
Justice's of the Supreme Court agree that the RIDE program is unlawful as they violate your s. 9 Charter rights. However, this violation is saved under s. 1 of the Charter.
But here's the part they never told you.
Section 1 only saves breaches of the Charter. Section 1 does not apply to other existing rights and freedoms you have in Canada.
Section 26 of the Charter states:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1. ... _I-gb:s_25
26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
The Canadian Bill of Rights is alive and well despite the Charter coming into force.
Prior to the Charter the Canadian Bill of Rights was only a federal statute rather then a constitutional document. It had no application to provincial laws. The very purpose for creating the Charter was to protect people’s rights and freedoms from intrusion, particularly by the forces of provincial governments.
The Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter is broad and jealously guarded in jurisprudence.
The Canadian Bill of Rights only applies to federal laws, and not provincial laws.
The Criminal Code and its impaired driving provisions are federal law, to where the Canadian Bill of Rights still applies.
When a peace officer demands a breath sample, they do so under s. 254 of the federal Criminal Code.
The Supreme Court already proved R.I.D.E. programs are unlawful because they violate the citizen’s right against arbitrary detentions. Again, these arbitrary detentions are only saved by s. 1 of the Charter.
But the Canadian Bill of Rights says:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs ... rbo-ga:s_5
Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to
(a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention,
imprisonment or exile of any person;
The Canadian Bill of rights uses the words "arbitrary detention" while the Charter uses the words arbitrarily detained. The difference in words is not meaningful as s. 2 (c)(i) of the Bill of rights states:
(c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
(i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention
Thus the words “detained’ or “detention” are interchangeable and have the same meaning in Canadian law.
Police officers, when acting or purporting to act in their official capacity as agents of the state, only act lawfully if they act in the exercise of authority which is either conferred by statute or derived as a matter of common law from their duties.
It is for this reason that the actions of police officers must find legal justification in statutory or common law authority.
However, common law does not supersede the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Under the R.I.D.E. program, the police are stopping and detaining motorists arbitrarily to investigate whether or not they might be committing a criminal offence.
These random stops by the police under the R.I.D.E. program are indistinguishable from detention for questioning or investigation and, without validly enacted legislation to support them, are unlawful.
No statutory authority for the signal to stop your vehicle can be found in the Criminal Code. The Federal Government has also not enacted the Canadian Bill of Rights notwithstanding clause into the Criminal Code.
The R.I.D.E. program stop can only be found under s. 48 of the provincial HTA.
It would be contrary to the long standing protection accorded individual liberty by the common law and detrimental to the individual's fundamental right to be free from arbitrary interference to conclude that this action of the police is authorized and lawful.
It is the function of the Parliament, not of the courts or the Province and Territories, to authorize arbitrary police action that would otherwise be unlawful as a violation of rights traditionally protected at common law and under the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The police are stopping motorists on an entirely arbitrary basis to question them and determine if they have been drinking. The police have no grounds to reasonably suspect that the driver has committed, was committing or was about to commit a criminal offence before the driver is requested to stop.
The random stopping of a driver for the purposes of the spot check procedure, although of relatively brief duration, results in the driver being detained within the meaning of s. 9 of the Charter and s. 2(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Since the Supreme Court already determined the stops are a violation of law and only the Charter is excluded because the stop is saved under s. 1, it does not make the stop legal under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
What the Supreme Court of Canada decisions do, is confirm the R.I.D.E. program and vehicle stops are still unlawful under s. 2 (a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.