On Tuesday, Justice Michel Yergeau of the Superior Court of Quebec ruled on a constitutional challenge to random police stops in the province, arguing that many of them are racially motivated.
The landmark ruling by Yergeau overturns a precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1990 in R. v. Ladouceur, which held that police were correct in randomly stopping an Ontario driver who was operating a vehicle with a suspended licence.
“Racial profiling does exist. It is not a laboratory-constructed abstraction,” wrote Yergeau in a statement, adding that “it is a reality that weighs heavily on Black communities. It manifests itself in particular with Black drivers of motor vehicles.”
The case of Joseph-Christopher Luamba, a 22-year-old Black Montrealer, presented the challenge this year. He said that he had been stopped by police over 10 times without cause, at least half of which occurred while he was operating a vehicle. None led to a citation.
BREAKING: Huge victory against #racialprofiling in Quebec @Cour_superieure!
We were very happy to work in support of this important issue alongside Joseph-Christopher Luamba, a courageous young man who stood up for his rights and the rights of all BIPOC people. #AssNat #cdnpoli
— Canadian Civil Liberties Association (@cancivlib) October 25, 2022
Luamba’s story also sparked action from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), which got involved in his lawsuit, arguing that random stops by police violate guaranteed equality rights and create opportunities for racial profiling under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The CCLA called Tuesday’s ruling “a huge victory against racial profiling in Quebec.”
During a Wednesday press conference, Gillian Moore, director of the equality program at the non-profit organization, said the “32-year-old precedent that had enabled racial profiling of drivers across Canada” was “unconstitutional,” adding that the new court decision represents “hope for this change across Canada.”