Ian Edwards, a Canadian who was born in Jamaica, landed at Pearson International Airport in Toronto after a trip from Punta Cana. He and another man, Mr. Dobson, both faced a secondary inspection by different border officers. What they have in common is that they’re both Black.  

Things got a bit tense when airport cleaners noticed Edwards and Dobson leaving the washroom together. A quick look in the bathroom revealed a broken ceiling tile on the floor and a hole in the ceiling above. Inside that hole was a stash of 23.8 kilograms of cocaine. After the drugs were found, Supt. Ryan became involved, and approached the counter where Mr. Edwards was being examined. He noted several factors raising suspicion, including Mr. Edwards’ short trip, last-minute ticket purchase, and his Jamaican-Canadian background. Supt. Ryan considered it unusual for Jamaican-born individuals to visit a Caribbean country other than Jamaica. After claiming to find tile dust on Mr. Edwards’s shoulder, he ordered Mr. Edwards to be arrested. Edwards was charged with importing cocaine. 

The Role of the Charter

The case hinges on whether Mr. Edwards’ rights—protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—were violated. The Charter is like a safety net that protects Canadians from government overreach. Edwards argued that his rights under Sections 7 and 15 were crossed.

Section 7 guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty, and security. It means the government can’t just take those away without a fair process.

Section 15 is all about equality. It protects against discrimination based on race, sex, age, and other factors. 

So, what exactly is racial profiling? It’s when someone in authority makes assumptions about a person based solely on their race or ethnicity without any real evidence to back it up. This leads to unfair treatment and scrutiny.

To figure out if racial profiling happened in Edwards’ case, courts look at two things: 

1. Attitudes: Did the officer think someone’s race indicated they might commit a crime?

2. Causation: Was race a factor—intentionally or not—in how the officer treated that person?

Edwards claimed that two border security officers, BSO Coughlin and Supt. Ryan, racially profiled him. 

Coughlin was working at the primary inspection desk when Edwards came through. She noticed he was sweating and seemed a bit nervous. As she questioned him, she found his short trip and inconsistent answers suspicious. However, the judge ruled that she didn’t racially profile him; her concerns were based on valid observations.

On the flip side, Supt. Ryan’s actions raised red flags. He admitted that he was suspicious of Edwards mainly because he was a Jamaican-born Canadian visiting another Caribbean country. To him, it seemed odd for someone from Jamaica to travel elsewhere in the Caribbean. 

In Supt. Ryan’s mind, if Mr. Edwards was going back to the Caribbean, it would have been more typical for him to return to Jamaica. 

The judge found that both parts of racial profiling were present in this case. The first part, the attitude component, was met because Supt. Ryan believed that Mr. Edwards, a Jamaican-born Canadian who travelled to a Caribbean country other than Jamaica, was likely involved in something suspicious. The second part, the causal component, was also met because Supt. Ryan admitted that this belief was an indicator that influenced his suspicion that Mr. Edwards had imported cocaine.

In other words, Supt. Ryan relied on a stereotype based on national origin, which led Mr. Edwards, a Jamaican-born Canadian, to different treatment and scrutiny. The judge noted that if such type of race-based travel patterns were routinely used as an indicator of criminal activity by border security, it could lead to any Jamaican-born Canadian travelling to a Caribbean country other than Jamaica being unfairly targeted. The judge found this to be discriminatory and unacceptable.

The Outcome

Because of this finding, the charges against Mr. Edwards were stayed, meaning he won’t ever face trial for the drug charges. The judge felt that given Supt. Ryan’s racial profiling, proceeding with the case would “harm the integrity of the criminal justice system regardless of whether the trial would be fair.”

A stay of proceedings is serious business—it’s a way for judges to prevent any further legal action and is reserved for only those cases of abuse of process where a very high threshold is met.

This case highlights how border inspections can escalate into allegations of racial profiling, underscoring the tension between security and equality in law enforcement. It serves as a reminder of the critical need to ensure that security measures are applied fairly, without reliance on stereotypes or discrimination. It stands as a success for the Charter in upholding its promise of equality and justice for all.