PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "QUOTE OF THE DAY: “In 1990, this court recognized that peace officers have the power to intercept anyone, anytime, anywhere,” Mike Siméon, Luamba’s lawyer, said. That precedent was challenged in 2022, when Quebec Superior Court Judge Yergeau ruled that random traffic stops violated several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including sections 7, 9 and 15. “Racial profiling does indeed exist. It is not an abstraction constructed in a laboratory. It is a reality that weighs heavily on Black communities. It manifests itself in particular with respect to Black drivers of motor vehicles,” Yergeau wrote before qualifying section 636 and the Ladouceur ruling as “a breach through which this insidious form of racism forces its way in.” Following Yergeau’s ruling, Luamba’s individual complaint became a class action, with several other Black men joining the case due to the prevalence of such types of traffic stops."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Joseph-Christopher Luamba was pulled over more than ten times in the 18 months after he received his driver’s licence."
GIST: In a case brought by a man who says he was racially profiled by law enforcement during several traffic stops over the course of a year and a half, the Supreme Court of Canada must decide whether Quebec’s law allowing police officers to stop drivers without cause is constitutional.
“This case is not about police officers acting improperly; it is about a law that has no legal limits and creates a police power that predictably produces massive racial profiling,” said Bruce Johnston of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who spoke before the Supreme Court during hearings held Monday and Tuesday.
Montrealer Joseph-Christopher Luamba first brought the case before the Quebec Superior Court in 2020.
Luamba was driving to college when a police patrol vehicle coming in the opposite direction turned around to pull him over. After running a few checks, the officer let Luamba go without issuing a ticket.
A nearly identical scenario occurred more than ten times in the 18 months following the issuance of Luamba’s driver’s license. Each time, there was no apparent reason for the traffic stop, and he was never issued a ticket or fined.
The reason for being stopped so frequently? The color of his skin, Luamba argues.
At the heart of the dispute is section 636 of Quebec’s Highway Safety Code, which states that a peace officer may require the driver of a road vehicle to stop their vehicle.
If section 636 is fairly vague, it is the common law rule established by R. v. Ladouceur that has made it so controversial. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that police officers can stop drivers randomly, without cause, as such stops are the only way to verify a driver’s license and insurance, a vehicle’s mechanical condition, and a driver’s sobriety.
“In 1990, this court recognized that peace officers have the power to intercept anyone, anytime, anywhere,” Mike Siméon, Luamba’s lawyer, said.
That precedent was challenged in 2022, when Quebec Superior Court Judge Yergeau ruled that random traffic stops violated several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including sections 7, 9 and 15.
“Racial profiling does indeed exist. It is not an abstraction constructed in a laboratory. It is a reality that weighs heavily on Black communities. It manifests itself in particular with respect to Black drivers of motor vehicles,” Yergeau wrote before qualifying section 636 and the Ladouceur ruling as “a breach through which this insidious form of racism forces its way in.”
Following Yergeau’s ruling, Luamba’s individual complaint became a class action, with several other Black men joining the case due to the prevalence of such types of traffic stops.
The Quebec attorney general challenged Yergeau’s decision, but the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the ruling and suspended random police stops as of April 2025. The province has since appealed, and the case is now before the Supreme Court of Canada, which will have the final word on the matter.
During the hearing, most parties acknowledged that racial profiling is a reality. The debate, however, centered on whether it stems from isolated incidents of biased policing or whether it is a direct consequence of section 636 and the Ladouceur decision.
As Justice Nicholas Kasirer put it: “Is the fault that of the police officer, or that of the legislator?”
The main argument advanced by Quebec’s attorney general was that it is inevitable that police discretionary powers “will sometimes be misused and diverted from the purposes for which they were intended,” and that when this occurs, the appropriate response should be individual remedies, not the invalidation of the law.
“But is it only sometimes, or is it systematically?” Justice Mary T. Moreau asked.
“Because what this provision does is open the door to anything. There are no safeguards or criteria within the legislation to regulate police conduct, whereas in the criminal context and in criminal investigations, such safeguards do exist,” she continued.
Sajeda Hedaraly of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers went further, arguing that the legislative design of section 636 entrenches arbitrariness and gives “free rein to conscious and unconscious bias and prejudice, which leads to racial profiling.”
In R. v. Ladouceur , the court acknowledged that traffic stops are arbitrary, but ruled they are acceptable because they are deemed necessary to achieve road safety objectives and, above all, because they are considered a “minor inconvenience.”
However, Johnston pointed out that the class action before the court demonstrates the scale of the problem. He notably cited the case of François Ducas, a Black teacher who, like Luamba, was pulled over repeatedly without any reason. He was profiled so many times that, at one point, he refused to identify himself. Police then told him they would have to arrest him.
“He called the police to protect him from the police — and he was handcuffed in front of his students. This is happening, and it’s unacceptable. It has to stop,” Johnston said.
Court records include testimony from Ducas’ wife, who described the psychological impact the repeated police stops had on her husband. She said he’s suffered persistent sleep loss, and, for a period of time, he no longer wanted to leave the house.
On the other side, Quebec’s Attorney General and several interveners argued that the police power to stop drivers arbitrarily is necessary to ensure road safety and provides a stronger incentive to comply with traffic laws than structured programs such as stationary roadblocks.
Jacob Damstra, who represented intervener Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), explained that social media and smartphones now allow the locations of stationary checkpoints to be shared in real time, making them easy to avoid. He also cited an Australian study showing that in rural areas, mobile patrols were up to 11 times more effective than stationary stops.
“The government should not have to wait for the sky to fall — waiting for more victims of impaired driving and more families devastated by deaths and ruined lives that could have been prevented through the enhanced deterrence and detection that mobile stops provide,” Damstra said.
Quebec’s attorney general also argued there is no significant evidence of systematic recurrence showing that section 636 leads to racial profiling.
Hedaraly countered that proving that a person was the victim of racial profiling is inherently difficult.
“It is well established in the case law that racial profiling is very difficult to prove," Hedaraly said. “Police officers may not even be aware that they are engaging in profiling. Profiling is not necessarily the result of racism; it is truly the product of unconscious biases that embed themselves in our psyche.”
The Akwesasne Justice Department, which participated as an intervener, asked the court to bring the spirit of reconciliation into its future decision, given the effect it will have on Indigenous communities.
“In rural areas across Canada, it may not be Black Canadians who are most affected, but Indigenous peoples, whom our justice system has harmed intergenerationally,” Neha Chugh said, noting that Indigenous communities continue to face over-policing as a result of Canada’s colonial history.
“When we hear arguments about public safety, I really want to ask: whose safety are we talking about? Is there a single one of us who is any safer when the law gives license to subject people to arbitrary state power on the basis of the color of their skin?” said Lex Gill, who represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
The entire post can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
——FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
