R v Whitfield
Supreme Court of Canada case
R v Whitfield (1969), [1970] S.C.R. 46 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the legal requirements of an arrest under the Criminal Code.
Background
In June 1967, James Whitfield was driving down a street in eastern Toronto. He had been wanted for damaging the seat cushions of a local restaurant. The police spotted him in his car and approached him at a stop light. Officer Kerr told him that he had a warrant for his arrest. Whitfield drove off but had to stop due to oncoming traffic. Kerr ran up to the car and grabbed Whitfield by the collar and said he was under arrest, but Whitfield accelerated and Kerr fell to the road.
Whitfield was convicted of escape of lawful arrest.
Reasons of the court
Judson J., writing for the majority, adopted the common law definition of arrest as consisting of "the actual seizure or touching of a person's body with a view to his detention. The mere pronouncing of words of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person sought to be arrested submits to the process and goes with the arresting officer." Consequently, there are two requirements to affect an arrest: actual seizure or touching of the suspects body with a view to detention; and pronouncing "words of arrest" to the suspect.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “R v Whitfield” as supreme Court of Canada case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as supreme Court of Canada case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 19, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q7274332. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1969, 1970 and 1967.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “R v Whitfield”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow R v Whitfield primary sources, R v Whitfield archive and Whitfield research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “R v Whitfield”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “R v Whitfield” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.