A Toronto man was acquitted of gun and drug charges Friday in a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that called out the effects of the “disproportionate policing” of racialized and low-income communities.

The case focused on Tom Le, who was convicted in 2014 after fleeing Toronto police officers who entered a private backyard to question a group of racialized men who were not suspects in a crime.

According to rulings from his case, the 20-year-old Le had been sitting with friends in the townhouse backyard of another friend at the Atkinson Housing Co-operative in Alexandra Park. Aside from Le, who is Asian, the other four men are Black.

Three police officers in the area that night were looking for two wanted individuals known to be involved in violent crimes. A security guard for the housing complex said one of the wanted men hung around behind the home where Le and his friends were spending time that night.

According to the officers’ own testimony, the men were simply talking and not doing anything wrong. Even so, the officers entered an opening in the fence surrounding the backyard and began asking the men questions and for ID. The officers didn’t recognize any of the men.

When an officer asked Le what was in his bag, he fled and was soon apprehended and found with a loaded gun, crack cocaine and cash.

Le was sentenced to five years in prison, which he has served.

His conviction was upheld in a split decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal, where, in a sharp dissent, Justice Peter Lauwers said he doubted “that the police would have brazenly entered a private backyard and demanded to know what its occupants were up to in a more affluent and less racialized community.”

Le appealed to the Supreme Court, where, in a 3-2 decision Friday, the majority said they agreed with Lauwers and overturned Le’s convictions. Writing for the majority, Justices Russell Brown and Sheilah Martin found Le’s charter right not to be arbitrarily detained was violated the moment the police walked through the fence in his friend’s backyard.

The two judges, joined by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, found that the police had engaged in “carding” — the practice of stopping and questioning individuals who are not suspected of any crime. The practice disproportionately affects racialized individuals and there is little evidence to show the practice is useful in reducing crime, according to a major independent report on the issue released last year by Court of Appeal Justice Michael Tulloch, who recommended it be banned in Ontario.

“The impact of the over-policing of racial minorities and the carding of individuals within those communities without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is more than an inconvenience. Carding takes a toll on a person’s physical and mental health. It impacts their ability to pursue employment and education opportunities,” the Supreme Court majority wrote.

“Such a practice contributes to the continuing social exclusion of racial minorities, encourages a loss of trust in the fairness of our criminal justice system, and perpetuates criminalization.”

The majority referenced a number of studies, including Tulloch’s report on carding, noting that recommendations from reports that are decades-old continue to be made in more recent studies.

“We do not hesitate to find that, even without these most recent reports, we have arrived at a place where the research now shows disproportionate policing of racialized and low-income communities,” the majority wrote.

“Indeed, it is in this larger social context that the police entry into the backyard and questioning of Mr. Le and his friends must be approached. It was another example of a common and shared experience of racialized young men: being frequently targeted, stopped and subjected to pointed and familiar questions.”

The relationship between police and racialized communities must be taken into account by courts when considering whether an objective observer would conclude that someone such as Le was being arbitrarily detained, the majority found.

“When three officers entered a small, private backyard, without a warrant, consent, or warning, late at night, to ask questions of five racialized young men in a Toronto housing co-operative, these young men would have felt compelled to remain, answer and comply,” the majority said.

Le’s lawyers, Emily Lam and Samara Secter, said they were grateful for the court’s decision.

“We’re grateful that the court heard us, that they heard the voices of marginalized and racialized communities, all of whom have been saying that they are policed differently, and the court recognizing that their experience has been different,” said Lam.

“It doesn’t matter how rich you are, it also doesn’t matter how little you have, you always have the right to be left alone,” said Secter. “I think this is a push from the Supreme Court to have police recognize that everyone’s rights deserve respect.”

Toronto police spokesperson Allison Sparkes told the Star that the ruling “will be reviewed and considered by the Toronto Police Service’s professional standards unit.”

In a stinging dissent, Justice Michael Moldaver, joined by Chief Justice Richard Wagner, castigated the majority’s reasoning and said he would have upheld Le’s convictions. He agreed police were trespassing, but that it was inadvertent as they were investigating and looking for specific individuals.

Le was only arbitrarily detained once a police officer approached him asking questions, Moldaver found, saying that the arbitrary detention lasted only seconds, and that once Le fled, the situation had now become a lawful detention.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Moldaver found that the arbitrary detention, in this case, was not that serious in terms of conduct infringing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would lead to the exclusion of evidence under section 24 (2) of the charter.

“It is equally clear that exclusion of the evidence would swiftly and irreparably bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In my view, reasonable and well-informed members of the public would regard a decision in this case to exclude the evidence and exonerate an admitted drug dealer who was prepared to reach for a loaded weapon during a violent struggle with the police as not merely alarming, but intolerable,” Moldaver wrote.

“Our society — which is what s.24 (2), this court, and the justice system as a whole are each meant to serve — deserves better.”