Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...
Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...
Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA<br />
R. v. Rodgers<br />
(R. v. Jackpine)<br />
[2006] 1 S.C.R. 554<br />
(from ON CA)<br />
Charron J. with<br />
McLachlin C.J.,<br />
Bastarache and Abella<br />
JJ. (con);<br />
Fish, Binnie and<br />
Deschamps JJ. (dis)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(DNA Samples)<br />
R. v. Mann<br />
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 59,<br />
Iacobucci J. with<br />
Major, Fish, Binnie,<br />
and LeBel JJ. (con);<br />
Deschamps and<br />
Bastarache JJ. (dis)<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Body Search<br />
R. v. Tessling<br />
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 432,<br />
Binnie J. with<br />
- The accused was convicted<br />
<strong>of</strong> sexual assault <strong>the</strong>n let go on<br />
probation.<br />
- He was convicted prior to <strong>the</strong><br />
proclamation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1998 DNA<br />
Identification Act and was<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore not ordered to<br />
provide a DNA sample when<br />
sentenced.<br />
- Prior to <strong>the</strong> expiration <strong>of</strong> his<br />
sentence, <strong>the</strong> Crown applied<br />
ex parte under s. 487.055(1)(c)<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code for<br />
authorization to take DNA<br />
samples from <strong>the</strong> accused for<br />
inclusion in <strong>the</strong> national DNA<br />
databank. A warrant was<br />
issued.<br />
- The accused applied for a<br />
declaration that s. 487.055<br />
infringed ss. 7, 8, 11(h) and(i)<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- The accused was detained by<br />
police and searched for<br />
weapons. The search yielded<br />
drugs.<br />
- <strong>On</strong> <strong>the</strong> strength <strong>of</strong><br />
information gained from two<br />
informants, police used FLIR<br />
technology to obtain a <strong>the</strong>rmal<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10,<br />
11;<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
487.04, 487.051, 487.052,<br />
487.055, 487.057(1),<br />
487.06(2), 487.07, 718.2,<br />
718.3(1);<br />
- DNA Identification Act,<br />
ss. 3, 4, 17; and<br />
- Identification <strong>of</strong><br />
Criminals Act, s. 2(1).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 9, 10(a),<br />
(b), 24.<br />
• <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2).<br />
- While <strong>the</strong> taking <strong>of</strong> bodily samples for DNA<br />
analysis without consent constitutes a seizure<br />
within <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er,<br />
- (1) Is <strong>the</strong> collection <strong>of</strong> DNA samples from<br />
designated classes <strong>of</strong> convicted <strong>of</strong>fenders for<br />
databank purposes reasonable?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> PO search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspect violate<br />
s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) Does <strong>the</strong> police use <strong>of</strong> FLIR without a<br />
warrant violate s.8<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Society has an interest in using this new technology to assist law enforcement<br />
agencies in <strong>the</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fenders.<br />
- The resulting impact on <strong>the</strong> physical integrity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fender is minimal.<br />
- The use <strong>of</strong> DNA sampling for databank purposes has been restricted to use as an<br />
identification tool only.<br />
- S. 487. 005 targets dangerous convicted <strong>of</strong>fenders – since <strong>the</strong> accused’s identity as<br />
a multiple sex <strong>of</strong>fender is a matter <strong>of</strong> state interest – he loses any reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> identifying information derived from DNA sampling.<br />
- The reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is lower for convicted <strong>of</strong>fenders.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (<strong>the</strong> individualized credibly-based probability standard established<br />
in Hunter will be <strong>the</strong> constitutional norm; DNA collection provisions in <strong>the</strong> CC fall<br />
withim <strong>the</strong> Hunter standard)<br />
- Ref. also to Mann, Collins, and Murrins<br />
- (1) The <strong>of</strong>ficer was justified in searching <strong>the</strong> accused for weapons but <strong>the</strong> intrusive<br />
checking <strong>of</strong> his pockets was not justified.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information)<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances)<br />
- Ref.to Kokesch (police have to act in good faith)<br />
- Ref.to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8)<br />
- (1) The FLIR Camera can be classified as “<strong>of</strong>f-<strong>the</strong>-wall” technology and not<br />
“through-<strong>the</strong>-wall” technology. There is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in<br />
information released from <strong>the</strong> home, such as heat, because it is not part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “core<br />
biographical information” protected by s.8 (Plant). Therefore, FLIR does not<br />
1
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
McLachlin C.J.,<br />
Major, Bastarache,<br />
LeBel, Deschamps<br />
and Fish JJ. (con)<br />
(Iacobucci and<br />
Arbour took no part<br />
in judgment)<br />
image <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> home <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused<br />
constitute a search.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information)<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances)<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects people and not places and only protects a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
Surveillance –<br />
FLIR<br />
R. v. Buhay<br />
[2003] 1 S.C.R. 631<br />
The <strong>Court</strong>: by<br />
Arbour J., with<br />
McLachlin C.J.,<br />
Gonthier,<br />
Iacobucci, Major,<br />
Bastarache, Binnie,<br />
LeBel and<br />
Deschamps JJ.<br />
Property Search –<br />
Bus Station<br />
Storage Locker<br />
R. v. S.A.B.<br />
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 678,<br />
Arbour J. with<br />
McLachlin C.J.,<br />
Gonthier,<br />
Iacobucci, Major,<br />
Bastarache, Binnie,<br />
LeBel<br />
andDeschamps JJ<br />
(con)<br />
- The accused stored<br />
marijuana in a storage locker<br />
at a bus station.<br />
- Security smelled it and<br />
called police, who opened <strong>the</strong><br />
locker and subsequently<br />
arrested <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
• Police took DNA from <strong>the</strong><br />
aborted foetus <strong>of</strong> a child<br />
rape victim to compare with<br />
a suspect’s DNA<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2),<br />
32(1).<br />
• <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8, 24.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search <strong>of</strong> a storage locker rented<br />
to <strong>the</strong> accused violate his s.8 rights?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Does <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in a storage locker<br />
rented at <strong>the</strong> bus station?<br />
• YES<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
• (1) Do <strong>the</strong> DNA Warrant provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Criminal Code violate ss. 7 and 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The accused rented <strong>the</strong> locker legitimately and had control and possession <strong>of</strong> its<br />
contents at all times.<br />
- The reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is lower here than that in one’s body, home<br />
or <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
- Ref.to Edwards (need both objective and subjective reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy, followed by a totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances test)<br />
- Ref.to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search; police should act in good faith)<br />
- Ref.to Hunter (to have a s. 8 breach you need a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
- (1) Balancing <strong>the</strong> private and state interests in determining <strong>the</strong> reasonableness <strong>of</strong><br />
searches requires a warrant system and one was in place here: <strong>the</strong> DNA Warrant<br />
System.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable)<br />
- Ref. to Dyment, Stillman, and Collins<br />
Personal Info –<br />
DNA<br />
2
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Law<br />
[2002] 1 S.C.R. 227,<br />
Bastarache J. with<br />
McLachlin C.J. and<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Gonthier,<br />
Iacobucci, Major,<br />
Binnie, Arbour and<br />
LeBel JJ. (con)<br />
- The defendant’s safe was<br />
stolen and found open. A<br />
police <strong>of</strong>ficer photocopied<br />
tax documents and sent <strong>the</strong>m<br />
to revenue <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2); and<br />
- Excise Tax Act, ss. 288,<br />
327.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police action in searching <strong>the</strong><br />
stolen safe and seizing tax documents violate<br />
s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) D had a reduced reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> contents <strong>of</strong> his stolen<br />
safe.<br />
- (2) The police could examine <strong>the</strong> contents for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> pursuing <strong>the</strong> thief but<br />
not on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> hunches about <strong>the</strong> defendant’s tax returns.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> breach; police acting in good faith)<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (objective and subjective reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy<br />
required)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a reasonable search)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> / Search<br />
<strong>of</strong> Person –<br />
Personal Info<br />
R. v. Fliss<br />
[2002] 1 S.C.R. 535<br />
Arbour J. with<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Iacobucci, Major,<br />
Bastarache, Binnie,<br />
and LeBel JJ. (con)<br />
Surveillance<br />
(Wiretap)<br />
- The accused confessed to an<br />
undercover police <strong>of</strong>ficer that<br />
he killed a woman.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer secretly recorded<br />
<strong>the</strong> conversation pursuant to<br />
prior judicial authorization.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>the</strong>n reviewed<br />
<strong>the</strong> transcript and made<br />
corrections based on his own<br />
recollection.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24, 24(2);<br />
and<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
686(1)(b)(iii).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tape and material<br />
based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer’s recollections violate s. 8<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES (But only <strong>the</strong> unremembered portions<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> transcript violated section 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er).<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The <strong>of</strong>ficer's testimony was admissible.<br />
- He was entitled to refresh his memory by means <strong>of</strong> inadmissible evidence but he<br />
should not have been allowed, at trial, to recite <strong>the</strong> transcript beyond what he could<br />
recall.<br />
- The testimony was not admissible as past recollection recorded because <strong>the</strong><br />
transcript did not accurately represent his recollection.<br />
- The <strong>Chart</strong>er breach did not cause or contribute to Fliss's statements.<br />
- The key elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> confession were available at trial from <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer's own<br />
recollection.<br />
- (2) The evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) because its admission<br />
did not affect <strong>the</strong> fairness <strong>of</strong> trial, it was not conscripted, and <strong>the</strong> confession was<br />
freely given.<br />
- The <strong>Chart</strong>er breach did not cause or contribute to Fliss's statements.<br />
- The exclusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer's testimony itself would bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong><br />
justice into disrepute.<br />
Lavallee, Rackel and<br />
Heintz v. <strong>Canada</strong> (A-<br />
G); White,<br />
Ottenheimer and<br />
Baker v. <strong>Canada</strong> (A-<br />
G); R. v. Fink<br />
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 209,<br />
- All three cases deal with s.<br />
488(1) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code,<br />
which concerns <strong>the</strong><br />
protection, under attorney /<br />
client privilege, <strong>of</strong><br />
information seized under<br />
warrant from lawyers’ <strong>of</strong>fices.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8,<br />
10(b), 11(b);<br />
- Criminal Code, s.488(1)<br />
- (1) Does s. 488(1) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code<br />
violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
– Ref. to Stillman and Duarte also.<br />
- S. 488(1) more than minimally impairs solicitor-client privilege.<br />
3
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Arbour J., with<br />
McLachlin C.J. and<br />
Iacobucci, Major,<br />
Bastarache and<br />
Binnie JJ. (con);<br />
LeBel with<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé<br />
and Gonthier (dis in<br />
part)<br />
Personal Info -<br />
Privileged Info<br />
R. v. Jarvis<br />
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 757,<br />
Iacobucci and<br />
Major JJ. with<br />
McLachlin C.J.,<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Gonthier,<br />
Bastarache, Binnie,<br />
Arbour and LeBel<br />
JJ. (con).<br />
- A Revenue <strong>Canada</strong> auditor<br />
requested records based on tip<br />
that <strong>the</strong> accused failed to<br />
report revenue from <strong>the</strong> sale<br />
<strong>of</strong> his wife’s art in 1990 and<br />
1991<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 24. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> auditor’s request for financial<br />
information violate ss. 7 or 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The information was obtained pursuant to a valid warrant and was <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
legitimately available for use.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protecting reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Financial Records<br />
Ruby v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(Solicitor General)<br />
[2002] 4 S.C.R. 3<br />
Arbour J. with<br />
McLachlin C.J.<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Gonthier,<br />
Iacobucci, Major,<br />
Bastarache, Binnie,<br />
and LeBel JJ. (con.)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
- Ruby made a Privacy Act<br />
request for access to personal<br />
information held by <strong>the</strong><br />
Canadian Security Intelligence<br />
Service CSIS.<br />
- CSIS refused to disclose any<br />
information, claiming Privacy<br />
Act exemptions for<br />
information obtained in<br />
confidence where <strong>the</strong><br />
disclosure could reasonably be<br />
expected to be harmful to <strong>the</strong><br />
conduct <strong>of</strong> international affairs<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 2(b), 7, 8;<br />
and<br />
- Privacy Act, ss. 11,<br />
12(1), 16(1), 16(2), 19,<br />
21, 22(1), 22(3), 26, 28,<br />
29, 34(2), 41, 45, 46, 47,<br />
49, 51, 52.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> withholding <strong>of</strong> information<br />
violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The s. 8 analysis was combined with <strong>the</strong> s. 7 analysis. There was no violation<br />
<strong>of</strong> s. 7 and <strong>the</strong>re was no infringement <strong>of</strong> principles <strong>of</strong> fundamental justice. Therefore,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re was no violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8.<br />
- Ref. to Dyment for analysis<br />
4
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
person – records<br />
or <strong>the</strong> defence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong><br />
R. v. Golden<br />
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 679<br />
Iacobucci and Arbour<br />
JJ with Major, Binnie,<br />
and LeBel JJ. (con.);<br />
Bastarache and<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.<br />
(dis.)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(Body Searches)<br />
- Police observed <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
give a substances to two<br />
individuals in a shop in an<br />
area known for illegal drug<br />
trafficking.<br />
- Golden was arrested and,<br />
following his arrest, was<br />
found to have drugs lodged in<br />
his anus – but police couldn’t<br />
get it out.<br />
-Police <strong>the</strong>n forced <strong>the</strong><br />
accused to take <strong>the</strong> drugs out<br />
<strong>of</strong> his anus.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(1),<br />
24(2)<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
254(3)(a), 254(3) (b), 487,<br />
487.04, 487.05, 487.06,<br />
487.07, 487.08, 487.09<br />
- Customs Act, s. 98<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong> behaviour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> police in<br />
forcing accused to remove <strong>the</strong> drugs from his<br />
body a violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Where <strong>the</strong> circumstances <strong>of</strong> a search require <strong>the</strong> seizure <strong>of</strong> material located in<br />
or near a body cavity, ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> individual being searched should be given <strong>the</strong><br />
opportunity to remove <strong>the</strong> material himself, or <strong>the</strong> advice and assistance <strong>of</strong> a trained<br />
medical pr<strong>of</strong>essional should be sought to ensure <strong>the</strong> safe removal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> material.<br />
- Given that <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er is to protect individuals from<br />
unjustified state intrusions upon <strong>the</strong>ir privacy, it is necessary to have a means <strong>of</strong><br />
preventing unjustified searches before <strong>the</strong>y occur, ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>n simply determining<br />
after <strong>the</strong> fact whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search should have occurred.<br />
- (2) Although <strong>the</strong> second search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused (<strong>the</strong> forcible removal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> items<br />
from his buttocks) violated s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er, <strong>the</strong> evidence was admissible pursuant<br />
to an analysis under s. 24(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er. Because <strong>the</strong> court is dealing with <strong>the</strong><br />
drug trade, which affects society as a whole, not admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence would bring<br />
<strong>the</strong> justice system into disrepute<br />
Smith v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(Attorney General)<br />
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 902<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> (McLachlin<br />
C.J. and L'Heureux-<br />
Dubé, Gonthier,<br />
Iacobucci, Major,<br />
Bastarache, Binnie,<br />
Arbour and LeBel JJ.<br />
Personal Information<br />
provided to one Gov’t<br />
Agency by <strong>the</strong><br />
suspect used by<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
R. v. Araujo<br />
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 992<br />
LeBel J. with<br />
McLachlin C.J.,<br />
- The plaintiff left <strong>Canada</strong><br />
while on Employment<br />
Insurance in violation <strong>of</strong><br />
program requirements. At <strong>the</strong><br />
border on his return he filled<br />
out a form for <strong>Canada</strong> Customs<br />
(CCRA).<br />
- That information was shared<br />
with <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
Unemployment Insurance<br />
Comission.<br />
- The accused were charged<br />
with numerous <strong>of</strong>fences for<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir alleged involvement in a<br />
cocaine-trafficking ring. Most<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence against <strong>the</strong>m<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 6(1), 8. - (1) Does CCRA’s practice <strong>of</strong> sharing<br />
information with <strong>the</strong> CUIC violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8;<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 186,<br />
186(1)(b), 676(1)(a).<br />
• No<br />
- (2) Does <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in information<br />
disclosed to <strong>the</strong> CCRA?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> wiretapping despite<br />
obtaining <strong>the</strong> warrant through incorrect<br />
sources violate <strong>the</strong> accused’s s. 8 rights?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable; s. 8<br />
protects a person’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
- (1) The plaintiff’s privacy interest does not outweigh <strong>the</strong> CUIC goal <strong>of</strong> effective<br />
administration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Employment Insurance program.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information)<br />
- (1) Under s. 186(1)(b) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code, wiretapping was an appropriate<br />
investigative tool where o<strong>the</strong>r investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.<br />
-The applicant for a wiretap had to establish that o<strong>the</strong>r procedures were unlikely to<br />
succeed.<br />
- The test for judicial review <strong>of</strong> a wiretap authorization was whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re was<br />
5
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Gonthier,<br />
Iacobucci, Major,<br />
Bastarache, Binnie,<br />
and Arbour JJ. (con.)<br />
Surveillance<br />
Wiretap/<br />
Procedural Fairness<br />
R. v. Caslake<br />
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 51,<br />
Lamer J with Cory,<br />
McLachlin and<br />
Major (con);<br />
Bastarache,<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé<br />
and Gonthier JJ.<br />
(dis)<br />
had been ga<strong>the</strong>red through<br />
wiretapping.<br />
- An <strong>of</strong>ficer admitted that<br />
parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> affidavit did not<br />
correctly identify one <strong>of</strong> his<br />
sources. The <strong>of</strong>ficer also<br />
admitted that he had known<br />
about this error for several<br />
weeks before <strong>the</strong> trial but<br />
didn’t confess to <strong>the</strong> mistake.<br />
- After arresting a suspect for<br />
possession <strong>of</strong> illegal narcotics,<br />
an <strong>of</strong>ficer conducted a<br />
warrantless search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s car and found more<br />
drugs.<br />
- NOTE - In a lot <strong>of</strong> cases where <strong>the</strong>re was a<br />
problem with <strong>the</strong> application for <strong>the</strong> wiretap<br />
authorization it seems as though <strong>the</strong> courts<br />
are finding in favour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state because <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> negative social impact <strong>of</strong> finding for <strong>the</strong><br />
accused –<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspect’s car in<br />
violation <strong>of</strong> s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under s<br />
24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
reliable, reasonably believable evidence upon which an authorization could be<br />
based.<br />
- Although <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer had not disclosed a minor drafting mistake, <strong>the</strong> substance <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> information in <strong>the</strong> affidavit was not untruthful.<br />
-The application was allowed – <strong>the</strong> error wasn’t a violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (for <strong>the</strong>re to be a search/seizure <strong>the</strong>re must be reasonable grounds<br />
to believe that an <strong>of</strong>fence has been committed)<br />
- Ref. to Plant (misstatements do not affect <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> warrant)<br />
- (1) Unwarranted searches are presumed unreasonable and <strong>the</strong> Crown failed to<br />
justify <strong>the</strong> search.<br />
- (2) The evidence was not excluded as <strong>the</strong> breach was minor and excluding <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence would put justice into disrepute.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (starting point <strong>of</strong> s. 8 analysis; purpose <strong>of</strong> s.8 and what it protects)<br />
Property Search –<br />
Vehicle<br />
(warrantless)<br />
Schreiber v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(Attorney General)<br />
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 841<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé J,<br />
with McLachlin,<br />
Bastarache, Binnie and<br />
Lamer JJ. (con);<br />
Iacobucci and<br />
Gonthier JJ. (dis).<br />
- Without judicial<br />
authorization, <strong>the</strong> Crown<br />
requested information from <strong>the</strong><br />
Swiss government about <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s Swiss bank account.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 24(1),<br />
32(1).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> Crown’s request to <strong>the</strong> Swiss<br />
government for information about an account<br />
held in that country violate <strong>the</strong> accused’s s.8<br />
rights?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Requesting information didn’t violate <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er<br />
- Swiss government actions are not <strong>Chart</strong>er actionable<br />
- Lamer (con): A search carried out in a foreign country under foreign laws doesn’t<br />
violate <strong>the</strong> reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy; <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence that <strong>the</strong> seizure<br />
was illegal under Swiss law.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (balancing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> societal interests in protecting individual dignity,<br />
integrity and autonomy against <strong>the</strong> need for effective law enforcement)<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects <strong>the</strong> reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
Warrantless request<br />
by Crown for<br />
Personal Info about<br />
foreign bank<br />
accounts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
6
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
accused<br />
R. v. Lauda<br />
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 683<br />
Cory J. with<br />
McLachlin,<br />
Iacobucci, Major<br />
and Bastarache JJ.<br />
(con).<br />
Property Search –<br />
warrantless - not own<br />
R. v. Arp<br />
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 339,<br />
Cory J. with Lamer<br />
C.J., L’Heureux-<br />
Dubé, Gonthier,<br />
Major, McLachlin,<br />
Iacobucci,<br />
Bastarache, and<br />
Binnie (con)<br />
- Police seized drugs cultivated<br />
on private property on which<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused was trespassing.<br />
- Suspect consented to having<br />
hair samples taken for one<br />
investigation and police used<br />
it in a second investigation.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 11(d),<br />
24(2).<br />
• <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 11(d),<br />
24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> 3 rd party private<br />
property on which <strong>the</strong> drug cultivation<br />
occurred?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Were <strong>the</strong> s.8 rights <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
violated?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> suspect have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> hair samples?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) As a trespasser <strong>the</strong> accused has no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> land<br />
in question.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances)<br />
- (1) The hair samples were taken pursuant to a valid warrant, <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> suspect<br />
has no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
<strong>Identity</strong><br />
Procedural<br />
Fairness<br />
R. v. M. (M.R.)<br />
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 393<br />
Cory J. with Lamer<br />
C.J. , L’Heureux-<br />
Dubé, Gonthier,<br />
McLachlin,<br />
Iacobucci,<br />
Bastarache and<br />
Binnie (con); Major<br />
(dis)<br />
- A Junior High School Vice<br />
Principal (VP) searched <strong>the</strong><br />
accused in <strong>the</strong> presernce <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> police but not at <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
request. He found a bag <strong>of</strong><br />
marijuana on <strong>the</strong> person <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2), 32(1);<br />
- Education Act, R.S.N.S.<br />
1989, c. 136, s. 54(b), (g).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> school <strong>of</strong>ficial’s search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
suspect violate his s.8 privacy rights?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The search was reasonable because <strong>the</strong> VP was not acting on behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
police. The student had a lower reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy as <strong>the</strong> VP had <strong>the</strong><br />
right to enforce school rules.<br />
- This lower reasonable expectation applies to elementary and secondary schools but<br />
not to colleges and universities.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8)<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> Person –<br />
7
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
by School <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
M. (A.) v. Ryan<br />
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 157,<br />
McLachlin J. with<br />
La Forest, Sopinka,<br />
Cory, Iacobucci and<br />
Major JJ. (con);<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé<br />
(dis).<br />
- Patient records from<br />
previous counselling were<br />
requested at trial<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8, 15. - The majority focused on doctorr/patient<br />
priveliege.<br />
- <strong>On</strong>ly <strong>the</strong> dissent discussed s.8.<br />
- (1) Should <strong>the</strong> patient records be produced?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The patient must establish a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> records<br />
which must <strong>the</strong>n be weighed against society’s interest in a fair trial.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Patient Records<br />
R. v. Stillman<br />
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 607,<br />
Cory J., with<br />
Lamer CJ.,<br />
Iacobucci and<br />
Major JJ. (con);<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Sopinka and<br />
McLachlin JJ. (dis).<br />
- The suspect was accused <strong>of</strong><br />
murder. His lawyer refused to<br />
provide bodily samples but <strong>the</strong><br />
police took <strong>the</strong>m by force on<br />
two occasions.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police’s taking <strong>of</strong> bodily samples<br />
under threat <strong>of</strong> force and without consent<br />
violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The suspect has a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in his bodily integrity. His<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy was lower due to his being in custody but not so<br />
low as to allow tissue to be taken.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information)<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police acting in good faith; evaluating <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er breach)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches presumed to be unreasonable)<br />
Personal Info –<br />
bodily samples<br />
R. v. Feeney<br />
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 13,<br />
Sopinka J. with<br />
Cory, Iacobucci,<br />
Major and La<br />
Forest JJ. (con);<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Gonthier,<br />
McLachlin and<br />
Lamer JJ. (dis)<br />
- During a murder<br />
investigation <strong>the</strong> police<br />
entered <strong>the</strong> suspect’s home<br />
and arrested him when <strong>the</strong>y<br />
saw his shirt covered in blood.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 9,<br />
10(b), 24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police’s entry into <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
home violate his s.8 rights?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The arrest was invalid because <strong>the</strong> requirements for a warrantless search were<br />
not met and because exceptional circumstances are needed to allow an arrest in a<br />
warrantless search and <strong>the</strong>se were not met.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police acting in good faith)<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (need both objective and subjective reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 prevents all unreasonable search and seizures)<br />
Property Search –<br />
8
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Home (warrantles)<br />
Dagg v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(Minister <strong>of</strong> Finance)<br />
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 403,<br />
Cory J. with Lamer<br />
C.J., Sopinka,<br />
McLachlin and<br />
Iacobucci JJ. (con);<br />
La Forest,<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Gonthier and Major<br />
JJ. (dis)<br />
- Union employee arrival and<br />
departure time data acquired<br />
through an ATIP request to<br />
Revenue <strong>Canada</strong> was made<br />
public with personal<br />
information removed.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
-Privacy Act, ss. 2, 3(i)(j),<br />
8(2)(m)).<br />
- Does <strong>the</strong> information in <strong>the</strong> logs contain<br />
personal information (as per Privacy Act)?<br />
• YES<br />
- Did <strong>the</strong> Minister properly exercise his<br />
discretion?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) LaForest’s dissent discussed <strong>the</strong> reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy Revenue<br />
employees had in information (sign-in logs) collected as backups in case <strong>of</strong> fire.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information relating to informational privacy)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8)<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Employment Info<br />
R. v. Belnavis<br />
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 341,<br />
1997 CanLII 320<br />
(S.C.C.)<br />
Cory J., with<br />
Lamer C.J.,<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Gonthier,<br />
McLachlin, Major<br />
and Sopinka JJ.<br />
(con); Iacobucci<br />
(dis in part); La<br />
Forest (dis)<br />
Property Search –<br />
Vehicle – Accused<br />
not owner but use<br />
permitted<br />
- The accused was pulled over<br />
for a traffic violation. While<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused was searching for<br />
documents, a passenger was<br />
questioned.<br />
- Stolen goods were found in<br />
<strong>the</strong> vehicle, which belonged to<br />
a friend <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused and<br />
was being used with<br />
permission.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Does <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> vehicle?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Does <strong>the</strong> passenger have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> vehicle<br />
• NO<br />
- (3) Did <strong>the</strong> actions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers constitute<br />
a search in violation <strong>of</strong> s.8?<br />
• YES (for driver, not for passenger)<br />
- (4) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s.24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The driver had permission to use <strong>the</strong> car and thus had a reasonable expectation<br />
<strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
- (2) The passenger’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is judged on <strong>the</strong> totality <strong>of</strong><br />
circumstances and here her connection to <strong>the</strong> car was too tenuous to ground a<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
- (3) The s. 8 breach was merely technical and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> evidence should not be<br />
excluded under 24(2)<br />
- (4) A car is not as protected as a house and <strong>the</strong> car <strong>of</strong> a friend even less so.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (facts compared – and kokesch was distinguished)<br />
9
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Evans<br />
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 8<br />
Sopinka J., with<br />
Cory and Iacobucci<br />
JJ.; LaForest and<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé JJ.<br />
(con); Gonthier and<br />
Major JJ. (dis)<br />
Property Search –<br />
Home, Sniffing<br />
R. v. Edwards<br />
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 128<br />
Cory J. with Lamer<br />
C.J., Sopinka,<br />
Major, McLachlin,<br />
Iacobucci, La<br />
Forest, Gonthier,<br />
and L'Heureux-<br />
Dubé JJ. (con)<br />
- An <strong>of</strong>ficer knocked on <strong>the</strong><br />
door <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspect’s house,<br />
identified himself, smelled<br />
marijuana and immediately<br />
arrested <strong>the</strong> suspect.<br />
- Police seized drugs from <strong>the</strong><br />
apartment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> girlfriend <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficer “sniffing” inside<br />
<strong>the</strong> suspect’s home constitute a search in<br />
violation <strong>of</strong> s.8?<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10,<br />
11, 24;<br />
- Highway Traffic Act,<br />
R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s.<br />
217(2);<br />
- Narcotic Control Act,<br />
R.S.C., 1985, c. N-1 , s.<br />
4(2).<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s.24 (2)?<br />
• NO – <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer acted in good faith<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> girlfriend’s<br />
apartment violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Does <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in his girlfriend’s<br />
property?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in one’s doorway was waived to<br />
facilitate social communication. When <strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> this waiver are exceeded (as <strong>the</strong>y<br />
were by <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers in this case) <strong>the</strong> intrusion is a search and requires judicial<br />
authorization.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable)<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search)<br />
- (1) The accused denies ownership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> drugs and was just a visitor at <strong>the</strong><br />
apartment. (He did not contribute to <strong>the</strong> rent.)<br />
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy core biographical information)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable; s. 8<br />
protects people and not places)<br />
Property Search -<br />
not owner<br />
Michaud v. Quebec<br />
(Attorney General)<br />
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 3<br />
Lamer C.J. with<br />
Gonthier, McLachlin<br />
and Iacobucci JJ.<br />
(con); L'Heureux-Dubé<br />
J. (con); Sopinka,<br />
Major, Cory, La<br />
Forest JJ. (con).<br />
Surveillance<br />
- The appellant was <strong>the</strong> target<br />
<strong>of</strong> an authorized wiretap<br />
which led to his arrest.<br />
- The appellant intended to sue<br />
for damages and sought an<br />
order to open <strong>the</strong> sealed<br />
packet and copies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
wiretap recordings<br />
- The motion was dismissed as<br />
premature since <strong>the</strong> appellant<br />
was nei<strong>the</strong>r an accused nor a<br />
- Criminal Code, R.S.C.<br />
1985, c. C-46, ss. 122,<br />
184.1, 185(1) (e), 186(1),<br />
187, 189(1), 189(5), 190,<br />
193(2)(c), 196(1);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8,<br />
11(d), 24.<br />
- (1) Did denying access to this information<br />
violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- S. 24(2) N/A<br />
- (1) The trial judge should have given <strong>the</strong> appellant an opportunity to show that <strong>the</strong><br />
initial authorization was invalid, which would have entitled <strong>the</strong> appellant to access to<br />
<strong>the</strong> sealed packet.<br />
- (2) The judge did not err in denying <strong>the</strong> request for access to <strong>the</strong> tapes and<br />
transcripts: access to recordings is not necessary to prove s.8 <strong>Chart</strong>er rights were<br />
infringed.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (an interception executed on less than reasonable and probable<br />
grounds will violate <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> s. 186(1)(a) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code and thus<br />
constitute an "unreasonable search or seizure" under s. 8.)<br />
10
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
(Wiretap)<br />
R. v. Jacques<br />
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 312<br />
Gonthier J. with<br />
Cory and Iacobucci JJ.<br />
(con); Sopinka and<br />
Major JJ. (dis).<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
person (body search)<br />
R. v. Bernshaw<br />
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 254,<br />
Sopinka J. with La<br />
Forest, Gonthier,<br />
McLachlin and<br />
Major JJ. (con);<br />
Cory J. and Lamer<br />
C.J. (con);<br />
Iacobucci (con).<br />
plaintiff.<br />
- Police received information<br />
at <strong>the</strong> U.S./<strong>Canada</strong> border from<br />
border patrol that <strong>the</strong>re was a<br />
vehicle trying to cross <strong>the</strong><br />
border at an uncontrolled point<br />
<strong>of</strong> entry.<br />
- The tip led police to two cars:<br />
one had a grandmo<strong>the</strong>r in it,<br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r contained <strong>the</strong><br />
accused.<br />
- Police seized alcohol from<br />
<strong>the</strong> trunk <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
- An <strong>of</strong>ficer pulled over <strong>the</strong><br />
accused under suspicion <strong>of</strong><br />
driving under <strong>the</strong> influence<br />
- A breath test was conducted<br />
but <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer didn’t ensure<br />
<strong>the</strong> recommended 15 minute<br />
waiting period.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 9, 24(2);<br />
- Customs Act, ss. 11(1),<br />
99(1)(f), 159.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2).<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong> search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trunk arbitrary and<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore in violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong> breathalyser test administered in<br />
breach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused’s reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy and in violation <strong>of</strong> s.<br />
8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The police received information about <strong>the</strong> vehicle in advance <strong>of</strong> approaching it.<br />
They were told that <strong>the</strong>re was a vehicle near <strong>the</strong> border at an uncontrolled point,<br />
which already raised suspicion. The search wasn’t arbitrary because <strong>the</strong> police had a<br />
reasonable belief that <strong>the</strong>re could be danger at <strong>the</strong> border crossing point.<br />
- (2) The evidence would not have been found without breaches <strong>of</strong> s.9 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence would render <strong>the</strong> trial unfair and<br />
should be excluded.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (SCC has previously referred to <strong>the</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> "reasonable and<br />
probable grounds" as one <strong>of</strong> "credibly-based probability; purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8)<br />
- Ref. to Collins<br />
- (1) The reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is only mentioned in L'Heureux-Dubé’s<br />
concurring decision. She holds that <strong>the</strong> reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy <strong>of</strong> drivers<br />
is low because <strong>the</strong>y accept monitoring by police as a condition <strong>of</strong> being licensed to<br />
drive and because impaired driving is a serious issue requiring state attention.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s.8 protecting reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Breathalyzer<br />
R. v. Silveira<br />
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 297,<br />
Cory J. with<br />
Sopinka, Gonthier,<br />
Iacobucci and<br />
Major JJ. (con);<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé J.<br />
(con); La Forest J.<br />
(dis).<br />
- While a warrant was<br />
pending, <strong>the</strong> police entered <strong>the</strong><br />
home <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused and<br />
secured it to ensure that<br />
evidence wasn’t removed.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police’s unauthorized entry <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> home violate s. 8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The police should not have entered as <strong>the</strong>y did, but <strong>the</strong> evidence <strong>the</strong>y found was<br />
in this house and would have been found in <strong>the</strong> subsequent warranted search.<br />
- (2) In future cases such evidence likely would be excluded.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information)<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police acting in good faith)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8 to protect reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
11
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Property – Entry<br />
A. (L.L.) v. B. (A.)<br />
[1995] 4 S.C.R. 536,<br />
Lamer C.J. with<br />
Sopinka, Cory and<br />
Major JJ. (con);<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé J.<br />
with La Forest and<br />
Gonthier JJ. (dis in<br />
part).<br />
- The respondant was charged<br />
with sexually assaulting L.L.A<br />
when she was a child<br />
- The defense subpoenaed all<br />
institutional records relating<br />
to L.L.A<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 15. - To what extent is <strong>the</strong> defense entitled to<br />
subpoena medical and <strong>the</strong>rapeutic records<br />
relating to complainants held by third parties<br />
in sexual assault trials?<br />
• To a limited extent only <br />
-(1) The use <strong>of</strong> state power to compel <strong>the</strong> production <strong>of</strong> private records is justified<br />
where: (a) <strong>the</strong> accused cannot obtain <strong>the</strong> information by any o<strong>the</strong>r reasonable means;<br />
(b) <strong>the</strong> use is limited to fulfil <strong>the</strong> right to make a full answer and defence; (c)<br />
arguments urging production don’t rest on discriminatory assumptions and<br />
stereotypes; and (d) <strong>the</strong>re is proportionality between <strong>the</strong> salutary and deleterious<br />
effects <strong>of</strong> production.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects only a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Medical Info<br />
143471 <strong>Canada</strong> Inc.<br />
v. Quebec (A-G);<br />
Tabah v. Quebec (A-<br />
G)<br />
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 339<br />
Cory J. with<br />
Sopinka, Iacobucci<br />
and Lamer C.J.<br />
(con); La Forest,<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé<br />
and McLachlin, JJ.<br />
(dis).<br />
- Commercial documents were<br />
seized from <strong>the</strong> accused under<br />
s.40 and 41 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Act<br />
Respecting <strong>the</strong> Ministre de<br />
Revenu.<br />
- The accused challenged <strong>the</strong><br />
validity <strong>of</strong> 40/41 using ss. 7<br />
and 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8;<br />
-Act Respecting <strong>the</strong><br />
Ministre de Revenu<br />
- (1) Is it reasonable for courts to grant an<br />
interlocutory injunction on <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong><br />
information whose seizure is under review?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) A consideration <strong>of</strong> three criteria in this case leads to <strong>the</strong> conclusion that <strong>the</strong><br />
impounding orders should be maintained.The criteria are: (a) <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
question to be tried; (b) <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> irreparable harm to <strong>the</strong> applicant if <strong>the</strong><br />
interim order is refused; and (c) <strong>the</strong> balance <strong>of</strong> inconvenience caused to <strong>the</strong> parties<br />
by <strong>the</strong> interim order.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
Property Search –<br />
Documents –<br />
Regulatory<br />
R. v. Colarusso:<br />
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 20<br />
La Forest J. with<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Sopinka, Gonthier,<br />
Iacobucci and<br />
Major JJ. (con);<br />
- The accused had a double<br />
car crash and was suspected <strong>of</strong><br />
being drunk.<br />
- No breath test was<br />
administered and <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
refused <strong>the</strong> police’s request for<br />
a blood sample.<br />
- The coroner got <strong>the</strong> sample?<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8, 24(1),<br />
(2);<br />
-Coroner’s Act, s.16(2).<br />
- (1) Does s. 16(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Coroner’s Act<br />
violate s.8?<br />
• Unnecessary to decide – <strong>the</strong> search was<br />
invalid.<br />
- (2) Is s.16(2) saved by s.1?<br />
- (1) The seizure was illegal ei<strong>the</strong>r because <strong>the</strong> police used <strong>the</strong> coroner as an agent or<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y took <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> a valid search from <strong>the</strong> coroner.<br />
- (2) Evidence could legitimately have been obtained and its exclusion would put <strong>the</strong><br />
administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
12
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Lamer, Cory,<br />
McLachlin and<br />
Major JJ. (con).<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Accused’s Info<br />
Comité paritaire de<br />
l'industrie de la<br />
chemise v. Potash;<br />
Comité paritaire de<br />
l'industrie de la<br />
chemise v. Sélection<br />
Milton<br />
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 406,<br />
La Forest J. with<br />
Lamer C.J., Cory,<br />
Iacobucci,<br />
McLachlin and<br />
Sopinka JJ. (con);<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé J.<br />
with Gonthier and<br />
Major JJ. (con).<br />
under 16(2) and gave <strong>the</strong><br />
results to police.<br />
- Provincially mandated<br />
inspectors suspected illegal<br />
labour practices but were<br />
barred from entering <strong>the</strong><br />
premises to inspect <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
- The defendants claimed that<br />
s.22(e) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Act Respecting<br />
Collective Agreement<br />
Decrees, which allowed for<br />
inspections, violated s. 8.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8, 33;<br />
- Act Respecting<br />
Collective Agreement<br />
Decrees, s.22(e).<br />
• N/A<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Does <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> inspectors to enter<br />
premises for inspections violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The importance <strong>of</strong> ensuring proper working conditions outweighs privacy<br />
rights. The reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to inspection-related<br />
documents is not high.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy; reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy protecting<br />
core biographical information)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; s.8 protects only a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy)<br />
Property Search –<br />
Regulatory<br />
R. v. Boersma<br />
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 488<br />
Iacobucci J. with<br />
Sopinka, Gonthier,<br />
Cory and Major JJ.<br />
(con).<br />
- The accused was charged<br />
with cultivating marijuana on<br />
Crown land. Police spotted<br />
plants in plain sight and<br />
subsequently arrested and<br />
charged <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> location <strong>of</strong> his<br />
growing operation?<br />
• BCCA: NO<br />
• SCC: appeal dismissed<br />
- (1) The accused had no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy as he was using Crown<br />
land. Police spotted <strong>the</strong> plants from a nearby road and in no way violated Mr<br />
Boersma’s s.8 privacy rights.<br />
Property Search -<br />
Crown Land;<br />
R. v. Borden<br />
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 145,<br />
- The accused in a sexual<br />
assault case consented to<br />
police taking and using a<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 10(a), (b),<br />
24(2).<br />
- (1) Does <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> DNA evidence in<br />
investigations o<strong>the</strong>r than those for which<br />
permission was granted constitute a violation<br />
- (1) The accused should have been made to understand that <strong>the</strong> police intended to<br />
use <strong>the</strong> DNA in both investigations.<br />
13
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Iacobucci J., with<br />
Major, La Forest<br />
and Sopinka JJ.<br />
(con); Lamer and<br />
Gonthier JJ. (con<br />
with reasons);<br />
McLachlin J. (con<br />
with reasons)<br />
DNA sample for<br />
“investigations”<br />
- Police used <strong>the</strong> DNA to link<br />
<strong>the</strong> suspect to a previous<br />
crime.<br />
<strong>of</strong> s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under s.<br />
24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- Ref. to Dyment and Mellenthin<br />
Personal Info –<br />
DNA<br />
Baron v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
[1993] 1 S.C.R. 416,<br />
Sopinka J. with<br />
LaForest,<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Cory, McLachlin<br />
and Iacobucci JJ.<br />
(con); Stevenson<br />
took no part.<br />
- Revenue <strong>Canada</strong> conducted<br />
searches <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspect’s<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice and home and seized<br />
documents.<br />
- The suspect challenged<br />
Revenue <strong>Canada</strong>’s authority<br />
based on ss. 7, 8 and 15 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8,<br />
11(d), 15;<br />
- Income Tax Act,<br />
s.231.3.<br />
- (1) Does s. 231.3 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Income Tax Act<br />
violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) S. 231.3 requires judges to issue warrants at <strong>the</strong> request <strong>of</strong> Revenue <strong>Canada</strong>. S.<br />
8 requires judicial discretion in issuing warrants – here Parliament has limited <strong>the</strong><br />
matters that judges can consider, contrary to s.8. Therefore, s. 231.3 is no longer<br />
valid.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
Property Search –<br />
Office / Regulatory<br />
R. v. Macooh<br />
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 802,<br />
Lamer C.J. with<br />
La Forest,<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Gonthier, Cory,<br />
McLachlin and<br />
Iacobucci JJ. (con).<br />
- A police <strong>of</strong>ficer observed <strong>the</strong><br />
accused running several stop<br />
signs and began pursuit. The<br />
accused attempted to hide in<br />
<strong>the</strong> apartment <strong>of</strong> a friend and<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer followed him into<br />
<strong>the</strong> apartment..<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 9. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficer’s entry into <strong>the</strong><br />
apartment in hot pursuit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspect violate<br />
ss. 7 or 9 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) This case relates to a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy only ins<strong>of</strong>ar as s.7<br />
guarantees a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy. In this case <strong>the</strong> accused had no<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy because <strong>the</strong> courts won’t require an <strong>of</strong>ficer to<br />
abandon a chase at <strong>the</strong> suspect’s door.<br />
Property Search –<br />
Apartment – not<br />
owner<br />
14
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Dersch<br />
[1993] 3 S.C.R. 768,<br />
Major J. with<br />
Lamer C.J., La<br />
Forest, Sopinka,<br />
Cory, McLachlin<br />
and Iacobucci JJ.<br />
(con); L'Heureux-<br />
Dubé and Gonthier<br />
JJ. (con).<br />
- The accused was involved in<br />
a traffic accident and was<br />
suspected <strong>of</strong> being under <strong>the</strong><br />
influence <strong>of</strong> alcohol.<br />
- He rrefused to allow a blood<br />
sample to be taken but police<br />
got one from doctors.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8, 24,<br />
32(1).<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong> trial judge correct in allowing<br />
<strong>the</strong> blood evidence to be used at trial even<br />
though it was taken without <strong>the</strong> consent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The accused has a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in his medical<br />
information. The taking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> blood sample without consent and sharing <strong>of</strong> that<br />
information with <strong>the</strong> police violated s.8. Information was taken without warrant so is<br />
presumed illigitmate and <strong>the</strong> Crown failed to rebut this presumption.<br />
- (2) Blood test results were invalid and without that evidence <strong>the</strong> Crown had no<br />
case.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable)<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Blood Sample<br />
Wea<strong>the</strong>rall v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(Attorney General)<br />
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 872,<br />
La Forest J. with<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Sopinka, Gonthier,<br />
McLachlin, Iacobucci<br />
and Major JJ. (con).<br />
Prison - inmate<br />
and cell searches<br />
- A prisoner complained about<br />
female / male body searches<br />
and random cell checks.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8, 15. - (1) Does <strong>the</strong> frisking <strong>of</strong> a male inmate by a<br />
female guard violate ss. 7, 8 or 15?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Does female guard random cell searches<br />
violate s. 8?<br />
• Trial Judge: YES;<br />
• CA and SCC: NO<br />
- (1) Frisking and cell searches are necessary for prison security. Prisoners have no<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong>ir person or <strong>the</strong>ir cell. Since <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy <strong>the</strong>re is no s.8 issue.<br />
R. v. Plant<br />
[1993] 3 S.C.R. 281<br />
Sopinka J. with<br />
Lamer, LaForest,<br />
Gonthier, Cory and<br />
Iacobucci JJ. (con);<br />
McLachlin J. (con).<br />
Property Search –<br />
Perimeter; Hydro<br />
Usage<br />
- Police checked electricity<br />
use in <strong>the</strong> suspect’s home and<br />
conducted a warrantless<br />
perimeter search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> home<br />
in which marijuana was being<br />
grown.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> warrantless perimeter search <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> building constitute a search in violation <strong>of</strong><br />
s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Did <strong>the</strong> electronic monitoring <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s electricity use constitute a search?<br />
• NO<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
- (1) There were no exigent circumstances that justified <strong>the</strong> police’s actions in<br />
conducting a perimeter search without a warrant.<br />
- (2) The accused had no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to his<br />
electricity use because <strong>the</strong> information doesn’t reveal intimate details.<br />
- (3) The evidence was not excluded because police acted reasonably and in keeping<br />
with <strong>the</strong> law at <strong>the</strong> time. The electricity use would have been enough to get a warrant<br />
for a search.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a home perimeter search)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protecting people and not places)<br />
15
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
s.24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
R. v. Wise<br />
[1992] 1 S.C.R. 527,<br />
Cory J. with<br />
Gonthier and<br />
Stevenson JJ. and<br />
Lamer C.J. (con);<br />
La Forest J. (dis),<br />
Sopinka and<br />
Iacobucci JJ. (dis)<br />
- Police installed a tracking<br />
device in <strong>the</strong> suspect’s car<br />
after a warrant had expired<br />
and used <strong>the</strong> information<br />
gained against <strong>the</strong> suspect on<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r charge.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> warrantless installation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
tracking device in <strong>the</strong> suspect’s car constitute<br />
a breach <strong>of</strong> his s.8 rights?<br />
• YES, but a minor infraction only<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s.24 (2)?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) There is a lower reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in one’s car and <strong>the</strong> tracking<br />
device was unsophisticated so represented only a slight violation <strong>of</strong> s.8.<br />
- (2) The evidence was not excluded because police were acting in good faith in<br />
attempting to stop a series <strong>of</strong> murders in <strong>the</strong> area.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police must act in good faith when conducting a search)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects people and not places)<br />
Surveillance –<br />
tracking device in<br />
car<br />
R. v. Wiggins<br />
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 62,<br />
La Forest J., with<br />
Dickson C.J.,<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Sopinka, Gonthier<br />
and McLachlin JJ.<br />
(con); Lamer J.<br />
(con)<br />
- A police informant recorded<br />
conversations with <strong>the</strong><br />
accused, an alleged drug<br />
trafficker, without his<br />
knowledge or consent.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police’s use <strong>of</strong> a “body pack” on<br />
<strong>the</strong> informant to record conversations violate<br />
s.8<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- This decision follows Duarte<br />
Surveillance –<br />
audio<br />
R. v. Ladouceur<br />
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257<br />
Cory J. with<br />
Lamer, L’Heureux-<br />
Dubé, Gonthier,<br />
and McLachlin JJ.<br />
(con); Sopinka,<br />
- The accused was randomly<br />
stopped by police for a license<br />
and insurance check.<br />
- He admitted his license was<br />
suspended and was sentenced<br />
by a Justice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Peace.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8, 9,<br />
24(1), (2)<br />
- (1) Do random traffic stops without<br />
reasonable cause violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The stops violate s.9 but not s.8: police have <strong>the</strong> statutory right to randomly<br />
conduct license checks.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (unreasonable search only takes place if <strong>the</strong>re is a breach <strong>of</strong><br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
16
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Wilson, La Forest<br />
JJ. and Dickson C.J.<br />
(con).<br />
Traffic Stops<br />
R. v. Kokesch<br />
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 3,<br />
Sopinka J. with<br />
Wilson, LaForest<br />
and McLachlin JJ.<br />
(con);<br />
Dickson,<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé,<br />
and Cory JJ. (dis).<br />
- Police conducted a perimeter<br />
search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspect’s home<br />
without reasonable cause or<br />
legal authority.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police perimeter search violate<br />
s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• YES (4-3 decision)<br />
- (1) The suspect had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> perimeter <strong>of</strong> his<br />
home and <strong>the</strong> police lacked reasonable cause or lawful authority to search it.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protecting reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
Property Search –<br />
Home – Perimeter<br />
R. v. Wong<br />
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 36<br />
La Forest J. with<br />
Dickson,<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé<br />
and Sopinka JJ.<br />
(con); Lamer and<br />
McLachlin JJ.<br />
(con); Wilson (dis).<br />
- The accused rented a hotel<br />
room for gambling.<br />
-Police used video cameras to<br />
record <strong>the</strong> activities in <strong>the</strong> hotel<br />
room.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 9, 10(b),<br />
24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
178.13(2)(c), (d)<br />
(now s.186(4)(c), (d)).<br />
- (1) Does <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> video recording by <strong>the</strong><br />
police without judicial authorization<br />
constitute a search?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Does this search violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) This case follows Duarte where unauthorized electronic audio surveillance<br />
violated s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
• This rule extends to all technologies.<br />
• If a free and open society cannot brook <strong>the</strong> prospect that agents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state<br />
should, in <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> judicial authorization, have <strong>the</strong> right to record <strong>the</strong> words<br />
<strong>of</strong> whomever <strong>the</strong>y choose, it is equally inconceivable that <strong>the</strong> state should have<br />
unrestricted discretion to target whomever it wishes for surreptitious video<br />
surveillance (para 15)<br />
- Parliament (not <strong>the</strong> courts) should dictate <strong>the</strong> law with regard to <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> video<br />
recording.<br />
Unwarranted use<br />
<strong>of</strong> video<br />
surveillance to<br />
monitor actions <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> accused in a<br />
hotel room<br />
R. v. Duarte<br />
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 30,<br />
La Forest J. with<br />
- An informant’s apartment<br />
was monitored using audio<br />
recording equipment.<br />
- The informant and <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8, 24(2). - (1) Does making an audio recording without<br />
<strong>the</strong> consent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purposive approach <strong>of</strong> s. 8 analysis)<br />
- Ref. to Dyment<br />
- (1) A reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in private communications does not exist if<br />
<strong>the</strong> state can record private communications, without constraint, provided only that<br />
it has secured <strong>the</strong> agreement <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parties to <strong>the</strong> communication.<br />
- Audio recording is not <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>of</strong>ficers repeating <strong>the</strong>ir version <strong>of</strong> a<br />
17
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Dickson C.J.,<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé,<br />
Sopinka, Gonthier<br />
and McLachlin JJ.<br />
(con); Lamer (con<br />
in part).<br />
Property Search –<br />
Apartment;<br />
Surveillance –<br />
audio recording<br />
R. v. Mckinlay<br />
transport ltd.<br />
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 627,<br />
Wilson J. with<br />
Lamer, La Forest<br />
and L'Heureux-<br />
Dubé JJ. (con);<br />
Sopinka J. (con).<br />
consented to <strong>the</strong> recording but<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused did not.<br />
- Revenue <strong>Canada</strong> requested<br />
documents from <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
for an audit. The accused<br />
failed to deliver <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
- (2) Can it be justified under s.1?<br />
• NO<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s. 24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8. - (1) Does it violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er for<br />
Revenue <strong>Canada</strong> to demand information for<br />
tax purposes?<br />
• NO<br />
conversation.<br />
- Audio recording <strong>of</strong> a suspect should require a warrant / judicial authorization.<br />
- (3) The violation was a result <strong>of</strong> a reasonable misunderstanding on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
police and thus <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer’s notes drawn partially from <strong>the</strong> audio<br />
recording would not bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> law into disrepute.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8 and that it only protects a reasonable expectation<br />
<strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) The document requested was sought under a regulatory regime and <strong>the</strong> Hunter<br />
test is ill suited to regulatory affairs.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8 and that it only protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy).<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Tax Information<br />
Thomson<br />
Newspapers Ltd. v.<br />
<strong>Canada</strong> (Director <strong>of</strong><br />
investigation and<br />
research, restrictive<br />
trade practices<br />
commission)<br />
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 425,<br />
- A corporation was accused<br />
<strong>of</strong> “predatory pricing” and<br />
required to provide<br />
information and testify at<br />
Committee under s.17 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Combines Act.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8,<br />
11(c), 13, 24(2);<br />
- Combines Act, s. 17.<br />
- (1) Does s. 17 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Combines Act violate<br />
ss. 7 and 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The Combines Act is regulatory in nature. Suspects have a low reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> particular corporate information requested for <strong>the</strong><br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> investigation<br />
- (2) Seizure refers to tangible objects, not thoughts, so <strong>the</strong> requirement to testify<br />
doesn’t violate s.8.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8)<br />
(s.8) La Forest J.<br />
with L’Heureux-<br />
Dubé J. (con);<br />
Sopinka J. (dis in<br />
part); Wilson and<br />
Lamer JJ. (dis)<br />
18
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Regulatory<br />
R. v. Thompson<br />
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111<br />
Sopinka J.;with<br />
Dickson, Lamer and<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé JJ<br />
(con); Wilson J.<br />
(dis); LaForest J.<br />
(dis); McIntyre took<br />
no part.<br />
- Police had a a series <strong>of</strong><br />
authorizations to monitor a<br />
suspect’s communications and<br />
<strong>the</strong>y discovered a plan to<br />
smuggle marijuana.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did unsupervised monitoring <strong>of</strong> public<br />
payphones and surreptitious entry into private<br />
dwellings violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The search was conducted with authorization and was <strong>the</strong>refore not in violation<br />
<strong>of</strong>.s.8. Authorizations were limited to <strong>the</strong> suspects and not overly broad.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8).<br />
Surveillance –<br />
wiretap (on<br />
payphones)<br />
R. v. Hufsky<br />
[1988] 1 S.C.R. 621<br />
Le Dain J. with<br />
Dickson C.J., Beetz,<br />
Estey, McIntyre,<br />
Wilson, and La<br />
Forest JJ. (con).<br />
- Police stopped <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
car for a random license/<br />
insurance check. They<br />
detected alcohol and <strong>the</strong><br />
accused refused a breath test.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police’s use <strong>of</strong> “spot checks”<br />
violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The police’s request that appellant surrender his licence and insurance card for<br />
inspection did not constitute a search because <strong>the</strong>re is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy where a person is required to produce evidence <strong>of</strong> regulatory compliance.<br />
Property Search –<br />
Vehicle; Personal<br />
Info –Breathalyser<br />
R. v. Beare; R. v.<br />
Higgins<br />
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 387<br />
La Forest J. with<br />
Dickson, Beetz,<br />
Estey, McIntyre,<br />
Lamer, Wilson,<br />
Le Dain and<br />
L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.<br />
- The accused challenged <strong>the</strong><br />
police practice <strong>of</strong><br />
fingerprinting accused (not<br />
only convicted) prisoners<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10,<br />
11(c), (d), 24(1);<br />
-Identification <strong>of</strong><br />
Criminals Act, s.2.<br />
- (1) Does <strong>the</strong> fingerprinting <strong>of</strong> non-convicted<br />
prisoners by police under s.2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Indetification <strong>of</strong> Criminals Act violate ss.<br />
7,8,9,10 and 11 (c) and (d) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• –NO with regard to s.8<br />
- (1) This case focused largely on s.7, which was found not to be violated.<br />
- S. 8 was also found not to be infringed.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8).<br />
19
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
(con).<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Fingerprinting<br />
R. v. Dyment<br />
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 417,<br />
Lamer J. with<br />
Beetz,and Wilson JJ<br />
(con); La Forest J.<br />
and Dickson C.J.<br />
(con); McIntyre J.<br />
(dis); Le Dain took<br />
no part.<br />
- A doctor took blood from a<br />
car accident patient without<br />
consent <strong>the</strong>n gave it to police<br />
who had no idea suspect was<br />
drinking / doing drugs.<br />
- Suspect charged with DUI.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 24(2). - (1) Does <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> blood taken by<br />
<strong>the</strong> doctor?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The police’s taking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> blood constituted a search and as <strong>the</strong>y lacked judicial<br />
authorization it was unreasonable and violated s.8.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable).<br />
- Ref. to Collins (used to determine that evidence should be excluded).<br />
Personal Info –<br />
Blood Sample<br />
R. v. Simmons<br />
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 495<br />
Dickson C.J. with<br />
Beetz, Lamer and La<br />
Forest JJ (con); Wilson<br />
J. (con); McIntyre and<br />
L'Heureux-Dubé JJ.<br />
(dis).<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
person (body search)<br />
Hunter v. Southam<br />
Inc<br />
[1984] 2 S.C.R. 145<br />
Dickson J. with<br />
- The appellant was arrested at<br />
customs for smuggling drugs<br />
that she was carrying on her<br />
body.<br />
- The appellant was taken into<br />
a search room and shown a<br />
sign on <strong>the</strong> wall which set out<br />
ss. 143 and 144 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Customs Act., which provide<br />
authority for conducting<br />
personal searches.<br />
- The appellant undressed and<br />
removed some <strong>of</strong> her clo<strong>the</strong>s,<br />
revealing white adhesive<br />
bandages around her midriff.<br />
- Concealed in <strong>the</strong> bandages<br />
were plastic bags with<br />
cannabis resin.<br />
• Pursuant to s. 10(1) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Combines Investigation Act<br />
(CIA), combines inspectors<br />
raided <strong>the</strong> Southam <strong>of</strong>fices<br />
in Edmonton.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2);<br />
- Constitution Act, 1982,<br />
s. 52;<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
618(2)(a) [rep. and subs.<br />
1974-75-76, c. 105, s.<br />
18(2)];<br />
- Customs Act, ss. 143,<br />
144, 203.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss 8, 24(2);<br />
- Combines Investigation<br />
Act, s.10(1) and 10(3).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong>se searches violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Do ss. 10(1) and 10(3) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CIA violate<br />
s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) People have a lower expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy when crossing <strong>the</strong> border,<br />
- Sovereign states have <strong>the</strong> right to control who and what enters <strong>the</strong>ir boundaries.<br />
- Customs <strong>of</strong>ficers had reasonable grounds for suspecting that <strong>the</strong> appellant had<br />
contraband hidden about her body.<br />
- However, in this case <strong>the</strong> search was not conducted in a reasonable manner because<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> denial <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> right to counsel and <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> any explanation to <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant <strong>of</strong> her rights under <strong>the</strong> Customs Act.<br />
- Pointing to a sign on <strong>the</strong> wall is not sufficient.<br />
- There was no evidence that <strong>the</strong> appellant read <strong>the</strong> provisions or understood <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
- (2) Admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence would not have brought <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice<br />
into disrepute.<br />
- The customs <strong>of</strong>ficers acted in good faith in exercising <strong>the</strong> statutory requirements<br />
existing at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> search.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 purpose and Customs Act not meeting Hunter standard<br />
because reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is lower at airports)<br />
- (1) S. 8 entitles <strong>the</strong> individual to a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
• This reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy requires that a judge or o<strong>the</strong>r neutral<br />
individual balance <strong>the</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused and <strong>the</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> society (judicial<br />
authorization).<br />
• A justifiable search also requires reasonable and probable grounds as a minimum<br />
20
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Ritchie, Beetz,<br />
Estey, McIntyre,<br />
Chouinard, Lamer<br />
and Wilson JJ.<br />
(con); Laskin C.J.<br />
took no part.<br />
Property Search –<br />
Office<br />
- (2) Can this violation be justified under s.1?<br />
• NO (<strong>Court</strong> stuck down CIA 10(1) and 10<br />
(3)).<br />
standard.<br />
AB COURT OF APPEAL<br />
R. v. Yague<br />
2005 ABCA 140<br />
Côté J.A. with<br />
Wittman and Russell<br />
JJ.A. (con)<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property - vehicle<br />
search<br />
- Police stopped <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
after he violated traffic laws.<br />
- The police <strong>the</strong>n recognized<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused as member <strong>of</strong> an<br />
illegal drug trade party.<br />
- In addition, Lau, a<br />
passenger in <strong>the</strong> car, was on<br />
probation and had breached<br />
<strong>the</strong> conditions <strong>of</strong> probation..<br />
- The accused had cocaine in<br />
his car and was arrested.<br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 9, 24(2).<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong> stop arbitrary?<br />
• NO - because <strong>the</strong>re was already a traffic<br />
violation that allowed police to stop <strong>the</strong><br />
accused.<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Where <strong>the</strong> police have reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, such as a<br />
traffic violation, a search incidental to an arrest is legal and not in violation <strong>of</strong> section<br />
8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- The police were justified in searching <strong>the</strong> vehicle upon discovering that Lau was in<br />
breach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conditions <strong>of</strong> his probation.<br />
- (2) The evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- NOTE - Evidence is excluded under s. 24(2) where its admission would tend to<br />
render <strong>the</strong> trial unfair.<br />
• As outlined in R. v. Stillman (1997), <strong>the</strong> approach when considering trial fairness<br />
requires that <strong>the</strong> evidence be classified as ei<strong>the</strong>r conscriptive or non-conscriptive.<br />
• In this case, <strong>the</strong> evidence sought to be excluded, namely, cocaine and drug<br />
trafficking paraphernalia, is non-conscriptive evidence found while searching <strong>the</strong><br />
vehicle and not as a result <strong>of</strong> compelling <strong>the</strong> appellant to incriminate himself.<br />
R. v. Chang<br />
2003 ABCA 293<br />
Russell J.A.;<br />
Wittman and Smith<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property - vehicle<br />
search<br />
- A mall security guard seized<br />
ecstacy pills from <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
who was in car in a mall<br />
parking lot.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 10,<br />
24(2);<br />
- Controlled Drugs and<br />
Substances Act, s. 5(2).<br />
• NOTE - The <strong>Chart</strong>er doesn’t apply in<br />
this case because <strong>the</strong> security guard and<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused were both private citizens<br />
(this was also seen in R. v. Lunn, where<br />
<strong>the</strong> doctor wasn’t an agent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state).<br />
- (1) Had <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er applied, would <strong>the</strong>re<br />
have been a violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
- Ref. to Wilson, Caslake, and Stillman.<br />
- (1) Nei<strong>the</strong>r a search nor a seizure is unlawful if conducted with <strong>the</strong> consent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused.<br />
• The search and seizure were conducted in an automobile in <strong>the</strong> parking lot <strong>of</strong> a mall<br />
where one might have a reduced expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy:<br />
• There is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in respect <strong>of</strong> things that are in plain<br />
view.<br />
- (2) Given <strong>the</strong> non-conscriptive nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence, <strong>the</strong> minor breach and <strong>the</strong><br />
gravity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> charge, <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice would not be brought into disrepute<br />
by admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (drug charges were serious and <strong>the</strong> exclusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence would<br />
bring <strong>the</strong> justice system into disrepute)<br />
- Ref to Edwards (<strong>the</strong> onus <strong>of</strong> proving that a search is unreasonable lies with <strong>the</strong><br />
21
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. North<br />
2002 ABCA 134<br />
McMeekin J.A.;<br />
Lewis and Nation<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person - DNA<br />
Sample<br />
R. v. Daley<br />
2001 ABCA 155<br />
McClung J.A.;<br />
Sulatycky and<br />
Fruman JJ.A. (con)<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
person (body search)<br />
- The accused was charged<br />
with possession <strong>of</strong> child<br />
pornography.<br />
-The trial judge didn’t require<br />
him to provide a DNA<br />
sample.<br />
- The accused bought a plane<br />
ticket with cash and was<br />
stopped at <strong>the</strong> airport <strong>the</strong> next<br />
day.<br />
- A warrantless search <strong>of</strong> his<br />
suitcase was conducted.<br />
- Large amounts <strong>of</strong> cash and<br />
traces <strong>of</strong> cocaine were found.<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
163(1), 163.1, 163.1(4),<br />
487.051, 487.051(1)(a),<br />
487.051(3), 487.052,<br />
487.052(2), 487.054,<br />
487.06(1), 487.06(2), 673,<br />
718, 718.1, 718.2,<br />
742.3(1);<br />
- DNA Identification Act,<br />
ss. 3, 4.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 11, 11(d),<br />
24(2).<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 490,<br />
490(1), 490(6), 490(9),<br />
490(9.1);<br />
- Narcotic Control Act, s.<br />
10(1)(c).<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did taking A DNA sample in this case<br />
violate <strong>the</strong> accused’s reasonable expectation<br />
<strong>of</strong> privacy?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) By detaining Daley and searching him<br />
without reasonable grounds or a warrant, did<br />
<strong>the</strong> police violate his rights under section 8<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
person asserting <strong>the</strong> right on a balance <strong>of</strong> probabilities)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable)<br />
- (1) No evidence was submitted that indicated taking a DNA sample would have an<br />
unusual or particular effect on <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
• The impact on his privacy and security <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> person interests did not reach beyond<br />
<strong>the</strong> general effects associated with <strong>the</strong> order.<br />
• A person’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is lower after being convicted and<br />
serving a sentence.<br />
- Ref. to Murrins (regarding when a DNA sample is constitutionally required)<br />
- (1) There is a low reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> contents <strong>of</strong><br />
one’s suitcase in an airport.<br />
• Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> accused opened his suitcase to allow <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers to<br />
look shows that he consented to <strong>the</strong> search fur<strong>the</strong>r lessened <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> s.<br />
8 violation.<br />
- (2) Excluding <strong>the</strong> evidence would bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into greater<br />
disrepute than admitting it given <strong>the</strong> overwhelming evidence that Daley's possession <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> $16,000 in cash was unlawful.<br />
• The effect <strong>of</strong> exclusion would be to restore <strong>the</strong> proceeds <strong>of</strong> crime to Daley.<br />
R. v. Weir<br />
[2001] A.J. No. 869<br />
Russell J.A.;<br />
Berger. and<br />
Costigan JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level -<br />
Leave to appeal<br />
dismissed at SCC<br />
Surveillance<br />
Webtapping case<br />
-The accused was convicted<br />
<strong>of</strong> possession <strong>of</strong> child<br />
pornography.<br />
- During a routine repair <strong>of</strong><br />
Weir's electronic mailbox, his<br />
ISP discovered attachments<br />
to an e-mail message that<br />
appeared to contain child<br />
pornography.<br />
- The ISP opened <strong>the</strong><br />
attachments and found that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y did.<br />
- The ISP notified police,<br />
who obtained a search<br />
warrant for Weir's residence<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 163.1,<br />
163.1(1)(a), 163.1(4).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
computer and <strong>the</strong> disks, based on<br />
information given to <strong>the</strong> police by <strong>the</strong> ISP,<br />
violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Collins and Stillman<br />
- (1) The ISP was not an agent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state until it forwarded a copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> message to<br />
<strong>the</strong> police at <strong>the</strong> request <strong>of</strong> a police <strong>of</strong>ficer, after which it DID become an agent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
state.<br />
• The information obtained from <strong>the</strong> search was not necessary in order to have<br />
reasonable and probable grounds to obtain <strong>the</strong> subsequent search warrant: <strong>the</strong><br />
information provided by <strong>the</strong> ISP employees was sufficient<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8).<br />
- Ref to Kokesch (police must act in good faith; boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search <strong>of</strong><br />
home)<br />
22
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. D.M.F.<br />
1999 ABCA 267<br />
He<strong>the</strong>rington J.A.;<br />
Berger and Smith JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person - DNA<br />
Sample<br />
R. v. Pope<br />
1998 ABCA 267<br />
He<strong>the</strong>rington J.A;<br />
Côte, O'Leary JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Surveillance -<br />
Wiretap<br />
authorization<br />
and seized his computer and<br />
discs.<br />
- Without consent, <strong>the</strong> police<br />
took a DNA sample from a<br />
cigarette <strong>the</strong> accused had<br />
smoked during an interview<br />
with police.<br />
- The police also went to <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s mo<strong>the</strong>r’s house,<br />
entered <strong>the</strong> accused’s room,<br />
and took clo<strong>the</strong>s from which<br />
to take a DNA sample.<br />
- The accused was charged<br />
with drug trafficking based<br />
on intercepted telephone<br />
communications.<br />
- He was not named in <strong>the</strong><br />
authorization to intercept<br />
communications (wiretap),<br />
even though he was known to<br />
<strong>the</strong> police.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 10(b);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 715.<br />
- (1) Did taking <strong>the</strong> cigarette butts and<br />
handing <strong>the</strong>m over for DNA analysis without<br />
consent violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Did going into <strong>the</strong> accused’s bedroom<br />
and getting DNA samples violate s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - The trial judge found that <strong>the</strong> failure to<br />
name <strong>the</strong> accused in <strong>the</strong> wiretap and <strong>the</strong>n use<br />
<strong>the</strong> evidence was in violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 But <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Appeal asked:<br />
- (1) Was this in fact a violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The cigarette butts were abandoned and <strong>the</strong> accused <strong>the</strong>refore no longer had a<br />
privacy interest in <strong>the</strong>m (this was similar to <strong>the</strong> argument made in R v. Kirst)<br />
- (2) The accused did not have control <strong>of</strong> his bedroom and he could not regulate access<br />
to it. He did not have a subjective expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in relation to his room (see<br />
also R v. Kirst)<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (was <strong>the</strong>re a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy and was that<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy breached?; totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances)<br />
- (1) The accused wasn’t required to participate in <strong>the</strong> creation or discovery <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence, which existed independently <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> breach.<br />
• The statements were made voluntarily and independently (<strong>the</strong> statements would<br />
have happened regardless <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interception) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir monitoring and recording.<br />
- (2) For <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> assessing trial fairness in regard to section 24(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er, <strong>the</strong> element <strong>of</strong> compulsion required more than passive observation on <strong>the</strong> part<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state.<br />
• The evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> intercepted communications was non-conscriptive.<br />
- Ref. to Stillman and Collins<br />
BC COURT OF APPEAL<br />
R. v. Wucherer<br />
2005 BCCA 390<br />
Thackray J.A.;<br />
Mackenzie and Low<br />
JJ.A. (con)<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(Info/identity)<br />
R. v. Smith<br />
[2005] B.C.J. No.<br />
-The accused was convicted<br />
by a jury <strong>of</strong> manslaughter .<br />
- The trial judge refused <strong>the</strong><br />
disclosure <strong>of</strong> records from <strong>the</strong><br />
Criminal Injuries<br />
Compensation Board, and <strong>of</strong><br />
medical records related to <strong>the</strong><br />
victim's wife and daughter<br />
- The accused was convicted<br />
<strong>of</strong> possession <strong>of</strong> child<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 11(f);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 644.<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
163.1(3), 487.1 (1),<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> accused have a right to view <strong>the</strong><br />
records <strong>of</strong> his wife and his children?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search based on erroneous<br />
information given by <strong>the</strong> police violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong><br />
- (1) The judge did not err in using her discretion to refuse <strong>the</strong> disclosure <strong>of</strong> medical<br />
records or records related to <strong>the</strong> Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> victim's family.<br />
• There was no suggestion that <strong>the</strong> judge failed to recognize <strong>the</strong> correct principles<br />
applicable to <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> disclosure.<br />
• The finding that <strong>the</strong> records were not relevant and were not necessary to make<br />
full answer and defence was correct.<br />
- Ref. to O’Connor<br />
- (1) The search was a serious invasion <strong>of</strong> privacy, as <strong>the</strong> warrant was not properly<br />
obtained.<br />
23
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
1342<br />
Ryan J.A.; Esson and<br />
MacKenzie JJ.A. (con)<br />
* Final Level<br />
Surveillance (webtap)<br />
Procedural Fairness<br />
pornography for <strong>the</strong> purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> distribution and sale.<br />
- There were erroneous<br />
paragraphs in <strong>the</strong> information<br />
presented to obtain <strong>the</strong> search<br />
warrant for <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
computer hardware.<br />
- As a result, <strong>the</strong> trial judge<br />
had no choice but to quash<br />
<strong>the</strong> warrant, as <strong>the</strong> essential<br />
evidence had been excised<br />
from <strong>the</strong> material.<br />
487.1(4)(a);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2).<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- The warrant was also faulty because <strong>of</strong> an amendment made by <strong>the</strong> judicial justice<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> peace<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> possessing child pornography for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> distribution or sale<br />
was very serious because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> personal and societal harm flowing from <strong>the</strong> sexual<br />
exploitation <strong>of</strong> children.<br />
- (2) Good faith connotes an honest and reasonably held belief.<br />
- If a belief is honest, but not reasonably held, it cannot be in good faith, but it does<br />
not follow that it is necessarily in bad faith.<br />
- Ref. to Kokosch (police must act in good faith; good faith" is a state <strong>of</strong> mind, an<br />
honestly held belief”; to be held in good faith a belief must be reasonably based.<br />
- - Ref. to Collins<br />
Young et al v.<br />
Saanich Police<br />
Department et al<br />
2004 BCCA 224<br />
Huddart J.A;<br />
Finch and Lowery<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level (Leave<br />
to appeal dismissed<br />
by SCC)<br />
Home Search –<br />
perimeter search<br />
- The petitioners resided in a<br />
housing complex where <strong>the</strong>y<br />
were found by <strong>the</strong> police to<br />
be growing and using<br />
marijuana.<br />
- The police had interviewed<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r tenants and obtained<br />
information.<br />
- The landlord evicted <strong>the</strong><br />
petitioners because <strong>of</strong><br />
complaints from o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
tenants.<br />
- The petitioners challenged<br />
<strong>the</strong> eviction on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> s.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er s. 7, s. 8, 15 s.<br />
24(1), s. 32;<br />
- Constitutional Question<br />
Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68;<br />
- Controlled Drugs and<br />
Substances Act, S.C. 1996,<br />
c. 19, s. 4(1), s. 7 , s. 56;<br />
- Residential Tenancy Act,<br />
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 406, s.<br />
36(1).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police violate <strong>the</strong> petitioners’ s. 8<br />
rights?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The police did not undertake a search and seizure but ra<strong>the</strong>r asked <strong>the</strong> tenant<br />
questions to which <strong>the</strong> tenants gave answers freely.<br />
- The police didn’t obtain material evidence, <strong>the</strong>y only obtained information from<br />
<strong>the</strong> tenants.<br />
- The analysis is similar to that in R v. Lunn.<br />
- Ref. to Evans<br />
24
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
(warrantless search)<br />
8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
B.G. et al v.<br />
H.M.T.Q. in Right <strong>of</strong><br />
B.C.<br />
2004 BCCA 345<br />
Finch C.J.B.C;<br />
MacKenzie and Lowry<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(Info/identity)<br />
- The plaintiff, BG, appealed<br />
<strong>the</strong> variation <strong>of</strong> a publication<br />
ban.<br />
- BG had been an inmate at a<br />
school for boys and a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> former inmates sued <strong>the</strong><br />
school for sexual and<br />
physical assault.<br />
- An order was made banning<br />
publication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> names <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiffs or <strong>of</strong><br />
information that would<br />
identify <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
- Juvenile Delinquents Act;<br />
- Young Offenders Act;<br />
Youth Criminal Justice<br />
Act.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> parties in this case have a<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect<br />
to <strong>the</strong> information published under <strong>the</strong> partial<br />
publication ban.<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) There was no language in <strong>the</strong> first publication ban to indicate that it was not<br />
permanent.<br />
• If <strong>the</strong> ban was to end, that should only happen after a full reconsideration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
reasons for imposing it in <strong>the</strong> first place.<br />
R. v. Shoker<br />
2004 BCCA 643<br />
Levine J.A.; Finch<br />
J.A. (con); Hall J.A.<br />
(dis)<br />
*Final Level (Leave<br />
to Appeal granted at<br />
SCC)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(Urine, Blood, and<br />
breathalyser info)<br />
R. v. Greaves<br />
2004 BCCA 484<br />
Lowry J.A.; Finch and<br />
MacKenzie JJ.A. (con)<br />
* Final Level (leave<br />
to appeal refused by<br />
SCC)<br />
- The accused was charged<br />
with sexual assault and break<br />
and entering.<br />
- Upon probationary release<br />
he was told he had to give a<br />
urine and blood sample and<br />
breathalyser test upon<br />
demand/request <strong>of</strong> a peace<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer or probation <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
- The accused didn’t consent<br />
to giving <strong>the</strong>se bodily<br />
samples.<br />
- During an investigative<br />
detention, a number <strong>of</strong> items<br />
were seized from a suspect,<br />
including a cigarette box<br />
containing I.D. and a cell<br />
phone with an address book.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8;<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
487.056(3) s. 487.06(1)(c)<br />
, s. 487.07(3) , s. 718 , s.<br />
718.1 , s.732.1(3) s.<br />
732.1(3)(a)-732.1(3)(h) s.<br />
732.1(3)(c) s.732.1(3)(g) s.<br />
732.1(3)(g.1) s.<br />
732.1(3)(h), s. 737;<br />
- DNA Identification Act.<br />
- (1) Were <strong>the</strong>se probation requirements a<br />
violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused’s reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8?<br />
• YES<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er s.8, s.9, s.24(2). (1) Were <strong>the</strong> accused’s s.8 rights violated?<br />
• YES<br />
(2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s.24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Since <strong>the</strong> appellant did not consent, <strong>the</strong> court found that it was necessary to<br />
amend <strong>the</strong> probation order to delete <strong>the</strong> reference to providing samples from <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant's probation order.<br />
• With respect to <strong>the</strong> condition requiring bodily samples, <strong>the</strong> court held that <strong>the</strong><br />
sentencing judge had jurisdiction to impose such a requirement, but it didn’t meet<br />
<strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8)<br />
- Ref. to Collins<br />
- (1) Following Mann (SCC), during an investigative detention police are permitted<br />
to ‘pat-down’ a person for <strong>the</strong> purposes <strong>of</strong> protecting <strong>the</strong>mselves or o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
• The items seized were subject to a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy (items<br />
containing personal information). [Note that <strong>the</strong>re is no obligation to identify<br />
oneself].<br />
- (2) Test for exclusion: “<strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence on <strong>the</strong> fairness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial; <strong>the</strong><br />
seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> violation; and <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence would have<br />
25
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> a person –<br />
body search<br />
on <strong>the</strong> reputation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice: Collins, at 284-86; R. v. Stillman,<br />
1997 CanLII 384 (S.C.C.), [1997] 69.”<br />
• The s.8 violation was serious (searching pockets); however, this was mitigated in<br />
<strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cell phone by <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> reasonable and probable grounds to<br />
arrest (which would have led to a more extended search incidental to <strong>the</strong> arrest).<br />
B. C. Teacher's<br />
Federation v. School<br />
District No. 39<br />
2003 BCCA 100<br />
Hall J.A.; Low J.A.<br />
(con); Prowse J.A.<br />
(dis)<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person – Accused’s<br />
Info<br />
R. v. Hyatt<br />
2003 BCCA 27<br />
Smith J.A.; Low and<br />
Levine JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Property - vehicle<br />
- BCTF challenged <strong>the</strong><br />
School Act on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> s.<br />
8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- A teacher began to behave<br />
unusually, displaying an<br />
inability to interact with o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
staff and taking many sick<br />
days, which led to student<br />
complaints.<br />
- In February 2000, she was<br />
requested to undergo a<br />
psychiatric examination<br />
pursuant to section 92 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
School Act and was advised<br />
that failure to comply could<br />
result in her termination.<br />
- She refused to be assessed<br />
and was terminated.<br />
- The appellants and <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
accomplice were charged<br />
with armed robbery.<br />
- The accomplice was <strong>the</strong> one<br />
who testified, resulting in<br />
convictions for <strong>the</strong><br />
appellants.<br />
- It was acknowledged that<br />
<strong>the</strong> accomplice's <strong>Chart</strong>er<br />
rights to counsel and against<br />
unreasonable search and<br />
seizure had been breached.<br />
- Therefore,<strong>the</strong> appellants<br />
argued that accomplice's<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 2(b), 6,<br />
6(2)(b), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,<br />
13, 14, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 94(2),<br />
193, 195.1(1)(c), 254(3);<br />
School Act, s.92.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 9, 10(b),<br />
11(d), 24(1), 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 91(2),<br />
344(a), 351(2).<br />
- (1) Was requiring <strong>the</strong> teacher to undergo<br />
assessment a violation <strong>of</strong> s. 7 (security <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
person) or s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- There was no standing for <strong>the</strong> appellants to<br />
bring an appeal.<br />
- It was <strong>the</strong> accomplice who gave <strong>the</strong><br />
testimony.<br />
- (1) Despite <strong>the</strong>re being no standing, was<br />
<strong>the</strong>re still a breach <strong>of</strong> s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy).<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police acting in good faith).<br />
- (1) There was no prejudice to <strong>the</strong> School District by permitting BCTF to argue<br />
section 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
• Nei<strong>the</strong>r section 7 nor 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er applied to <strong>the</strong> circumstances <strong>of</strong> this case.<br />
• The request to undergo a psychiatric examination did not fall within <strong>the</strong><br />
parameters <strong>of</strong> section 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er as it was not a search or seizure.<br />
- Ref to Kokesch (boundaries for perimeter search <strong>of</strong> residence; ei<strong>the</strong>r seizure,<br />
surveillance or search).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; s. 8 protects a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) It was <strong>the</strong> accomplice's car and statement that were at issue.<br />
• The trial judge did not err in determining that police had articulable cause to<br />
search <strong>the</strong> vehicle.<br />
• Nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> accomplice's testimony nor <strong>the</strong> physical evidence could have been<br />
excluded under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er (need causal and temporal link to be excluded).<br />
- (2) Although <strong>the</strong>re was residual discretion to exclude accomplice’s evidence if<br />
required for trial fairness, <strong>the</strong> accused had not demonstrated a causal link.<br />
• Evidence will be excluded under s. 24(2) only where <strong>the</strong>re exists a sufficiently<br />
strong link between <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er breach and <strong>the</strong> discovery <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence and<br />
where causal and temporal connections are factors in <strong>the</strong> analysis.<br />
26
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Benham<br />
[2003] B.C.J. No.<br />
1315<br />
Low J.A.; Donald and<br />
Newbury JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
(Property search-<br />
Home<br />
Hydro/Electrical<br />
Searches) –<br />
testimony and evidence<br />
obtained from <strong>the</strong> search<br />
were not admissible against<br />
<strong>the</strong>m.<br />
- After electrical transformer<br />
malfunctions, Hydro checked<br />
<strong>the</strong> wires to Benham's home<br />
and found that he was using<br />
an excessive amount <strong>of</strong><br />
electricity.<br />
- It inspected Benham's<br />
property and found that he<br />
had installed a bypass.<br />
- <strong>On</strong> <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> this<br />
investigation, police<br />
discovered that Benham<br />
operated a marijuana<br />
cultivation operation.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Constitutional Question<br />
Act;<br />
- Utilities Commission Act,<br />
s. 125.<br />
- (1) Did Hydro's entry into Benham’s<br />
property constitute an unreasonable search<br />
and seizure?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Was <strong>the</strong> regulation that gave Hydro<br />
access to its meters and o<strong>the</strong>r equipment on<br />
customer premises unconstitutional?<br />
• NO<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances; rights are personal and cannot be<br />
asserted by anyone except <strong>the</strong> person whose rights are violated).<br />
- (1) The relationship between Hydro and its customers was contractual and <strong>the</strong><br />
terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> contract were dictated by statute and regulation.<br />
- (2) Hydro's equipment had to be located on customer premises and it would be<br />
commercially unrealistic for Hydro to be denied access to its own equipment.<br />
• There was also a low expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy related to Hydro personnel being on<br />
customer property.<br />
- (3) The evidence was admissible and should not be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2).<br />
• There was no breach <strong>of</strong> s. 8 and <strong>the</strong>refore no s. 24 analysis was undertaken.<br />
- Ref to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search for home).<br />
- Ref to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; protection mandated by s. 8).<br />
R. v. Dunbar,<br />
Pollard, Leiding and<br />
Kravit<br />
2003 BCCA 667<br />
Finch, Braidwood,<br />
and Lowry JJ.A.<br />
* Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
- The court ordered <strong>the</strong><br />
production <strong>of</strong> records held by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Law Society <strong>of</strong> B.C. to<br />
substantiate a claim <strong>of</strong><br />
incompetent counsel that<br />
formed <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> an appeal<br />
from four persons convicted<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fences .<br />
- Note: <strong>the</strong> afterword in <strong>the</strong><br />
case admonished <strong>the</strong> lawyer<br />
representing <strong>the</strong> appellants<br />
pointing out <strong>the</strong> irony<br />
concerning incompetence.<br />
- Legal Pr<strong>of</strong>ession Act,<br />
S.B.C. 1998, c.9, s.87(5)<br />
(statutory privilege).<br />
(1) Is <strong>the</strong>re a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy in <strong>the</strong> practice records <strong>of</strong> a lawyer?<br />
• YES. There is a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy on <strong>the</strong> part both <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lawyer and<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Law Society.<br />
(2) Should <strong>the</strong> records be produced?<br />
• NO<br />
(1) Law Society records have statutory privilege.<br />
• They are not subject to <strong>the</strong> Crown’s obligation to disclose, nor are <strong>the</strong>y subject<br />
to solicitor-client privilege (where waiver <strong>of</strong> privilege renders documents<br />
compellable).<br />
• If records are not subject to Criminal Code provisions related to non-production<br />
<strong>of</strong> records for certain <strong>of</strong>fences (e.g. sexual history <strong>of</strong> complainant) <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> test<br />
in O’Connor applies “to determine when <strong>the</strong> privacy interest in confidential<br />
third party records should yield to an accused’s right to make full answer and<br />
defence.”<br />
• A number <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> confidential third-party records will be subject to<br />
this test – including those based on statutory privilege.<br />
(2) O’Connor is a two part test:<br />
• Threshold: Are <strong>the</strong> records “likely to be relevant”? (i.e. is <strong>the</strong>re a reasonable<br />
possibility that <strong>the</strong> information is logically probative to an issue at trial or <strong>the</strong><br />
competence <strong>of</strong> a witness to testify?)<br />
• This should not be an onerous burden. It is intended to “prevent <strong>the</strong> defence<br />
from engaging in “speculative, fanciful, disruptive, unmeritorious, obstructive<br />
and time-consuming” requests for production.<br />
• –Balancing: Balance accused’s right to make full answer and defence against<br />
<strong>the</strong> privacy interests engaged, weighing salutary and deleterious effects <strong>of</strong><br />
27
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
production order. <strong>On</strong>e factor to take into account is <strong>the</strong> nature and extent <strong>of</strong> a<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> record.<br />
- In this case <strong>the</strong> evidence did not disclose that <strong>the</strong> records would likely be relevant,<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> analysis did not proceed to <strong>the</strong> second step.<br />
R. v. Truong<br />
2002 BCCA 315<br />
Donald J.A.; Prowse<br />
and Newbury JJ.A.<br />
(con)<br />
* Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/search <strong>of</strong><br />
person - personal<br />
property (luggage)<br />
- Marijuana was found when<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused’s luggage was<br />
removed from a conveyor<br />
belt in a secure baggage area<br />
by police.<br />
- The police seized Truong's<br />
bag, moving it a few feet, and<br />
allowed a police dog to sniff<br />
<strong>the</strong> bag for controlled<br />
substances.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> removal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bag constitute an<br />
unreasonable seizure and violate <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
s. 8 rights?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The police took control <strong>of</strong> Truong's bag away from <strong>the</strong> airline baggage<br />
handlers.<br />
• The police acted on suspicion and had no lawful authority to seize Truong's bag<br />
by removing it from <strong>the</strong> conveyor and taking it out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> control <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> airline.<br />
• Truong had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy that his bag would not be<br />
handled by anyone o<strong>the</strong>r than airline and security personnel.<br />
• Although <strong>the</strong> police should not be permitted to carry out such seizures arbitrarily,<br />
in this case <strong>the</strong> police had cause to seize <strong>the</strong> bag. Moving <strong>the</strong> bag to facilitate a<br />
sniff search is a justifiable intrusion under <strong>the</strong> circumstances.<br />
- (2) The breach was so minor that it should not result in <strong>the</strong> exclusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence obtained<br />
• Although <strong>the</strong> investigatory purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> seizure can be considered, <strong>the</strong> legality<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sniff search and <strong>the</strong> opening <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bag are not questioned.<br />
• Therefore, <strong>the</strong> moving a bag a few feet to enable a police dog to sniff it stands at<br />
<strong>the</strong> very low end <strong>of</strong> seriousness.<br />
• The evidence at trial was that <strong>the</strong> dog in this case was sniffing bags on <strong>the</strong> carts<br />
before <strong>the</strong>y were taken away to <strong>the</strong> aircraft.<br />
• The location <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bag when it was sniffed and how it got <strong>the</strong>re were<br />
unimportant in <strong>the</strong> opinion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> court.<br />
R. v. Parchment<br />
2002 BCCA 252<br />
Braidwood J.A.;<br />
Prowse and Newbury<br />
JJ.A. (con) .<br />
* Final Level<br />
Property - vehicle<br />
R. v. Ku<br />
[2002] B.C.J. No.<br />
2316<br />
- The accused was pulled<br />
over by police for impaired<br />
driving<br />
- He was found to have<br />
possession <strong>of</strong> drugs.<br />
- A 14-year-old passenger in<br />
<strong>the</strong> car also had possession <strong>of</strong><br />
drugs which were hidden in<br />
her clo<strong>the</strong>s.<br />
- Upon his conviction on<br />
several counts <strong>of</strong> assault, <strong>the</strong><br />
accused was told by <strong>the</strong> trial<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8;<br />
- Controlled Drugs and<br />
Substances Act, s. 5(2).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8, 11(d),<br />
11(i), 24(1);<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> drugs that were<br />
hidden in <strong>the</strong> clothing <strong>of</strong> a 14-year-old<br />
passenger in his car?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did ordering <strong>the</strong> blood sample violate s.<br />
8?<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8).<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police must act in good faith).<br />
- (1) The girl holding <strong>the</strong> drugs was a minor – it would violate human dignity if <strong>the</strong><br />
accused had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in her and her possessions.<br />
• The accused had already been removed at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 14-year-old’s search,<br />
and both possession and control <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> drugs had been surrendered to <strong>the</strong><br />
girl The accused had no standing to challenge <strong>the</strong> search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> girl.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances test).<br />
- (1) As a convicted <strong>of</strong>fender, Ku had a reduced reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy<br />
and <strong>the</strong> search warrant standard did not apply to ei<strong>the</strong>r fingerprinting or blood<br />
samples.<br />
28
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Donald J.A.; Finch<br />
and Rowles JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person - DNA<br />
Sample<br />
Festing v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(Attorney General)<br />
2001 BCCA 612<br />
Prowse J.A.; Donald<br />
J.A. (con); Newbury<br />
J.A. (dis).<br />
* Final Level (leave<br />
to appeal refused by<br />
SCC)<br />
Property Search –<br />
Law <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
judge that he had to provide a<br />
blood sample for <strong>the</strong> DNA<br />
data bank.<br />
- Police conducted a<br />
warranted search <strong>of</strong> a<br />
Kelowna law <strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
-Documents were seized and<br />
given to <strong>the</strong> sheriff pending<br />
an application under s. 488.1<br />
and 487 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal<br />
Code, which refer to<br />
solicitor-client privilege.<br />
-The constitutionality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Criminal Code provisions<br />
was challenged.<br />
487.04, 487.051, 487.052,<br />
487.052(1), 487.06(1);<br />
- DNA Identification Act,<br />
ss. 3, 4;<br />
- Identification <strong>of</strong><br />
Criminals Act, s. 2.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8;<br />
-Criminal Code, ss. 488.1,<br />
487.<br />
• NO<br />
(1) Does s. 488.1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code<br />
infringe s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES (and it is not saved under s.1)<br />
(2) What is <strong>the</strong> appropriate remedy?<br />
• Strike down <strong>the</strong> section<br />
(3) Does s.487 infringe s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er to<br />
<strong>the</strong> extent that it applies to law <strong>of</strong>fices?<br />
• YES<br />
• The DNA sampling techniques were minimally invasive and could not reveal<br />
anything more about Ku than his identity.<br />
• The <strong>of</strong>fences were very serious and <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> violence over a trivial matter was<br />
<strong>of</strong> grave concern. It was in <strong>the</strong> best interests <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice that<br />
<strong>the</strong> DNA order be made<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (<strong>the</strong> seizure must be reasonable; <strong>the</strong> minimum standard is<br />
reasonable and probable grounds).<br />
- Ref. to Briggs (<strong>the</strong> state's interest in <strong>the</strong> DNA bank is not simply law enforcement,<br />
but to deter potential repeat <strong>of</strong>fenders, promote <strong>the</strong> safety <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community, detect<br />
when a serial <strong>of</strong>fender is at work, assist in solving cold crimes, streamline<br />
investigations, and assist <strong>the</strong> innocent by early exclusion from investigative<br />
suspicion or in exonerating <strong>the</strong> wrongfully convicted). Murrin, Dyment cited.<br />
- (1) The section is a prima facie violation <strong>of</strong> a client’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy for <strong>the</strong> following reasons (1-4):<br />
“1. <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> any notice provisions for clients, and <strong>the</strong> prospect that<br />
privilege can <strong>the</strong>refore be effectively lost or waived without notice to <strong>the</strong><br />
client by operation <strong>of</strong> s. 488.1(6);<br />
2. <strong>the</strong> above problem is exacerbated by <strong>the</strong> strict time limits contained<br />
in s. 488.1(3), particularly in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> practical difficulties <strong>of</strong> notifying<br />
clients when multiple files <strong>of</strong> a lawyer are searched and seized. In <strong>the</strong><br />
result, privileged documents may ‘fall through <strong>the</strong> cracks’;<br />
3. privilege may be potentially lost to <strong>the</strong> prosecuting authority by<br />
virtue <strong>of</strong> s. 488.1(4)(b);<br />
4. <strong>the</strong> requirement to name clients under s. 488.1(2) may result in a loss<br />
<strong>of</strong> privilege.” (para. 17)<br />
(4) What is <strong>the</strong> appropriate remedy?<br />
• Read into <strong>the</strong> section an exclusion for law<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices (warrant cannot be issued for law<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices).<br />
- (2) Rewording <strong>the</strong> section to be constitutionally sound is a job properly left to<br />
Parliament.<br />
- (3) and (4) S.487 infringes s.8 to <strong>the</strong> extent that it authorizes <strong>the</strong> search <strong>of</strong> law<br />
<strong>of</strong>fices without providing adequate safeguards to protect to <strong>the</strong> greatest degree<br />
possible solicitor-client privilege in information. A clear and uniform standard is<br />
required (and was attempted in <strong>the</strong> impuned s.488.1).<br />
- Note: “The rapid growth and use <strong>of</strong> technology in law firms has changed <strong>the</strong> very nature<br />
<strong>of</strong> a "document" such that computer hard drives are now being seized which may contain<br />
documents relating to hundreds <strong>of</strong> clients, most <strong>of</strong> whom have no connection to <strong>the</strong><br />
"target" <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> search. The interdisciplinary nature <strong>of</strong> modern law firms has also raised <strong>the</strong><br />
spectre <strong>of</strong> seizures from such firms resulting in <strong>the</strong> potential breach <strong>of</strong> confidentiality with<br />
respect to clients <strong>of</strong> accountants or o<strong>the</strong>r pr<strong>of</strong>essionals associated with <strong>the</strong> law firm” (para.<br />
37)<br />
29
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Khuc, Bui,<br />
Pham and Tran<br />
2000 BCCA 20<br />
McEachern C.J.B.C.;<br />
Finch and Ryan JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property search-<br />
Home – not owner<br />
R. v. Novak<br />
2000 BCCA 257<br />
Braidwood J.A.;<br />
Cumming and Finch<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property search-<br />
Home<br />
(Hydro/Electrical<br />
Searches) –<br />
R. v. Bohn<br />
2000 BCCA 239<br />
Ryan J.A.; Hollinrake<br />
and Huddart JJ.A.<br />
- An undercover cop<br />
purchased drugs on several<br />
occasions.<br />
- The seller’s car was seen to<br />
enter and exit a particular<br />
address.<br />
- A search warrant was<br />
granted for that address.<br />
- The police seized a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> items, including children's<br />
clo<strong>the</strong>s, drug paraphernalia,<br />
cash, documents, and 722<br />
grams <strong>of</strong> cocaine.<br />
- The accused claimed that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y had a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with<br />
respect to <strong>the</strong> house because<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were babysitting.<br />
- Novak leased a unit in a<br />
warehouse under a false<br />
identity.<br />
- Hydro records were in a<br />
third person's name.<br />
- The police suspected a drug<br />
cultivating operation and<br />
obtained hydro records for<br />
<strong>the</strong> unit showing hydro<br />
consumption for <strong>the</strong> unit was<br />
higher than for o<strong>the</strong>r units.<br />
- The unit also emitted a<br />
strong smell <strong>of</strong> marijuana.<br />
- Police <strong>the</strong>n got a search<br />
warrant and uncovered drugs.<br />
- The police received a tip<br />
that <strong>the</strong> accused had a hydro<br />
bypass and a marijuana grow<br />
operation in his residence.<br />
- After getting a warrant to<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
186(1)(b)(iii).<br />
• <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 40;<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 29(1);<br />
- Narcotic Control Act.<br />
- (1)Was <strong>the</strong>re a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> house searched by<br />
<strong>the</strong> police?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> way <strong>the</strong> search warrants were<br />
obtained violate s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did failing to produce a copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
warrant (and never<strong>the</strong>less searching <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s home) violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The accused did not assert possession or control <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> property, <strong>the</strong>y did not<br />
claim ownership, and <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir historical use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> premises.<br />
• That <strong>the</strong>y were babysitting was only an assertion unsupported by any evidence.<br />
• There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir ability to regulate access.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (facts compared and distinguished; totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- (1) There was no evidence that Novak had any expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect<br />
to <strong>the</strong> hydro records seized or with respect to <strong>the</strong> premises.<br />
- He didn’t own <strong>the</strong> building, didn’t live <strong>the</strong>re, <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence he was <strong>the</strong><br />
lessee or responsible for <strong>the</strong> hydro.<br />
- (2) There was no violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 because <strong>the</strong> accused had no reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> premises he didn’t own or occupy.<br />
Therefore – <strong>the</strong> evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical info; personal and intimate details <strong>of</strong> lifestyle)<br />
- Ref to Edwards (Two distinct questions must be answered in any s. 8 challenge:<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> accused had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy and whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search<br />
was an unreasonable intrusion on that right to privacy).<br />
- (1) Failure to produce <strong>the</strong> warrant on request without good reason was a significant<br />
breach.<br />
• It deprived <strong>the</strong> accused <strong>of</strong> seeing <strong>the</strong> legal authority on which <strong>the</strong> invasion <strong>of</strong> his<br />
privacy was based.<br />
• The breach was serious because, in conjunction with <strong>the</strong> privacy breach, it<br />
30
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
(con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property - Home<br />
(Hydro by-pass)<br />
search his house, police were<br />
unable to show <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
an actual copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> warrant.<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
demonstrated <strong>the</strong> inattention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> police to <strong>the</strong> accused's rights.<br />
- (2) Admission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence obtained by this kind <strong>of</strong> unwarranted search could<br />
bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute if <strong>the</strong> courts allowed this kind <strong>of</strong><br />
police conduct, and it was <strong>the</strong>refore excluded.<br />
R. v. Mooring<br />
[1999] B.C.J. No.<br />
1557<br />
Prowse J.A.;<br />
McEachern and Goldie<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Surveillance<br />
Wiretap/<br />
Procedural Fairness<br />
R. v. Vu<br />
1999 BCCA 182,<br />
McEachern C.J.B.C.;<br />
MacFarlane and<br />
Goldie JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(Photograph/<br />
identity) – this is not<br />
<strong>the</strong> case we have on<br />
computer<br />
- The accused was convicted<br />
<strong>of</strong> murder based on evidence<br />
from unreliable witness, who<br />
gave evidence <strong>of</strong> a<br />
conversation he had with<br />
Mooring in which Mooring<br />
allegedly confessed to<br />
shooting someone.<br />
- The convictions were also<br />
partly based on Mooring's<br />
intercepted communications,<br />
but Mooring was not named<br />
in <strong>the</strong> wiretap authorization.<br />
- An undercover <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
purchased cocaine from <strong>the</strong><br />
accused at a residential<br />
dwelling.<br />
- Two <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>the</strong>n went to<br />
<strong>the</strong> premises without a<br />
warrant and questioned <strong>the</strong><br />
accused about an assault.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficers noted that <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s face and clothing<br />
matched <strong>the</strong> description<br />
provided by <strong>the</strong> undercover<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
- The accused was arrested<br />
and photographed.<br />
- The undercover <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
testified that she had not used<br />
<strong>the</strong> photographs to refresh her<br />
memory <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 185,<br />
185(1)(e), 186(4)(a),<br />
186(4)(b), 186(4)(c),<br />
686(1)(b)(iii);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2).<br />
• <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> wiretap recording <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
violate s. 8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) Was going up to <strong>the</strong> accused door,<br />
knocking, <strong>the</strong>n taking a physical description<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused a violation <strong>of</strong> his reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy per s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects people and not things or places; people are entitled to<br />
a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) The accused was acquitted <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> murder charges.<br />
• Although it authorized <strong>the</strong> interception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accomplice’s communications, <strong>the</strong><br />
wiretap warrant did not authorize an interception in respect <strong>of</strong> Mooring and<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore it violated his reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
- (2) The quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> wiretap evidence was so poor, incomplete and<br />
incomprehensible, that it should not have been admitted.<br />
• The witness was unreliable, but <strong>the</strong> information given was not so devoid <strong>of</strong><br />
reliable content as to be inadmissible on <strong>the</strong> grounds that it would bring <strong>the</strong><br />
justice administration into disrepute.<br />
- Ref. to Ferris<br />
- (1) The conduct <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers was reasonable, as <strong>the</strong>y had reasonable grounds to<br />
believe that an <strong>of</strong>fence had been committed.<br />
• Walking to <strong>the</strong> door and knocking on it constituted a minimal interference with<br />
<strong>the</strong> privacy interest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> occupant.<br />
• Looking at people and taking a physical description <strong>of</strong> those who answer <strong>the</strong><br />
door are non-intrusive techniques for determining <strong>the</strong> characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused.<br />
- (2) Looking at <strong>the</strong> person who answers <strong>the</strong> door is a non-intrusive technique and<br />
was not characterized as conscriptive.<br />
• The evidence should be admitted in any event under section 24(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
• Rejecting this evidence on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r trespass or "using <strong>the</strong> body" <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused for identification by simply looking at him in a non-invasive way would<br />
clearly bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into serious disrepute.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable; s. 8<br />
protects a person’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (can’t obtain evidence through a <strong>Chart</strong>er breach; police must act<br />
in good faith in conducting searches).<br />
31
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Patterson v. British<br />
Columbia (Attorney<br />
General)<br />
1999 BCCA 645<br />
Holllinrake J.A.;<br />
Southin J.A. (con);<br />
Ryan J.A. (dis).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person; Records<br />
R. v. Sharpe<br />
1999 BCCA 416<br />
Southin J.A.; Rowles<br />
J.A. (con); McEachern<br />
J.A. (dis).<br />
* Reversed SCC<br />
(6:3 upheld <strong>the</strong> law<br />
but read down <strong>the</strong><br />
section)<br />
Property search –<br />
Home (perimeter<br />
search)<br />
- As a condition <strong>of</strong> receiving<br />
income assistance, it is <strong>the</strong><br />
practice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondent<br />
government to require people<br />
to provide <strong>the</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong><br />
Social Development and<br />
Economic Security with<br />
information regarding <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
identity, address, assets,<br />
sources and amounts <strong>of</strong><br />
income, and cost <strong>of</strong> shelter.<br />
- Patterson and <strong>the</strong><br />
Marginalized Workers Action<br />
League appeal a decision<br />
dismissing <strong>the</strong>ir challenge <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> requirement.<br />
- Police conducted a<br />
warranted search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s home and seized a<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> materials<br />
alleged to be pornographic.<br />
- B.C. Benefits (Income<br />
Assistance) Act, ss. 3,<br />
8(1)(a), 8(1)(b), 8(1)(c),<br />
8(3)(a), 8(3)(b), 19(2) (a),<br />
19(2)(b), 24(2)(e),<br />
24(2)(k);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 7, 8;<br />
- Income Assistance<br />
Regulation, B.C.<br />
Regulation 75/97, ss. 1,<br />
2(1)(a)(ii).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er s. 2(b), s.8, s.1;<br />
- Criminal Code,<br />
s.163.1(4).<br />
- (1) Does requiring this personal information<br />
as a condition <strong>of</strong> receiving income assistance<br />
violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Do <strong>the</strong> provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code<br />
prohibiting <strong>the</strong> private possession <strong>of</strong><br />
expressive materials (child pornography)<br />
violate <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
(1) Mandatory consent was necessarily incidental to achieving <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
ascertaining eligibility for benefits.<br />
• Limitations on <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> consent ensured that no <strong>Chart</strong>er right was breached, as<br />
<strong>the</strong> consent was only to verify information. Outside agencies could release<br />
information only if it was relevant to eligibility for assistance.<br />
• The information was said to be contained and did not go beyond <strong>the</strong> agency<br />
• Therefore <strong>the</strong>re was no breach <strong>of</strong> s. 8.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8).<br />
- The section infringes s.2(b) and cannot be saved under s.1 because it is overly<br />
broad and fails <strong>the</strong> proportionality test.<br />
- Southin: A significant value underlying <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er is a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy and case law concerning freedom <strong>of</strong> expression reflects <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er’s<br />
concern about privacy (particularly in <strong>the</strong> home or in private conversation).<br />
Detrimental effects to freedom <strong>of</strong> expression and <strong>the</strong> right to privacy substantially<br />
outweigh salutary effects.<br />
- Rowles: Concurs that <strong>the</strong> appeal should be dismissed and speaks in general terms<br />
about <strong>the</strong> importance and value <strong>of</strong> privacy enshrined in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er as a backdrop to<br />
determining whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> impugned section is minimally impairing under s.1.<br />
- McEachern (dis): S.8 is a specific guarantee against unreasonable search and<br />
seizure. Searches and seizures conducted under warrant could only be at issue if<br />
conducted under an invalid law. Privacy is an important factor when considering <strong>the</strong><br />
overbreadth <strong>of</strong> legislation (particularly in <strong>the</strong> home and in private papers).<br />
R. v. Connors<br />
1998 CanLII 12468<br />
(BC C.A.)<br />
Cummings J.A.;<br />
Donald and Newbury<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
- Prior to laying a drunkdriving<br />
charge, police<br />
fingerprinted <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
while in custody.<br />
- The accused was<br />
subsequently convicted.<br />
- His fingerprints were later<br />
used in ano<strong>the</strong>r case to<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8, 9 and 24(2);<br />
- Identification <strong>of</strong><br />
Criminals Act (ICA);<br />
Criminal Code ss. 501 and<br />
509.<br />
(1) Did fingerprinting <strong>the</strong> accused before<br />
charging him violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
(2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
24(2)?<br />
(1) The taking <strong>of</strong> fingerprints is, at common law, an incident to lawful arrest and not<br />
displaced by ICA (Cummings).<br />
• The accused consented to having fingerprints taken and <strong>the</strong>re was <strong>the</strong>refore no<br />
violation <strong>of</strong> s.8. Donald disagrees with Cumming’s statement <strong>of</strong> common law<br />
power and notes <strong>the</strong> implications for informational privacy.<br />
• Newbury generally concurs with Cummings except with respect to <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> ICA, which has displaced common law.<br />
32
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> –<br />
Fingerprints<br />
identify accused in<br />
connection with a robbery.<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Regardless <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er breach, evidence could have been obtained in o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
ways.<br />
- Any <strong>Chart</strong>er breach here was extremely technical, and police acted in good faith<br />
(Cummings and Newbury).<br />
- Note also <strong>the</strong> discussion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> retention <strong>of</strong> fingerprints and <strong>the</strong> legitimacy <strong>of</strong><br />
maintaining a database <strong>of</strong> fingerprints.<br />
R. v. B. (M.R.)<br />
[1998] B.C.J. No.<br />
1197<br />
Braidwood J.A.;<br />
McFarlane and<br />
Hollinrake JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(Blood Sample)<br />
R. v. Vu<br />
[1998] B.C.J. No.<br />
2694<br />
Hall J.A.; Southin and<br />
Lambert JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
-The appellant was <strong>the</strong> driver<br />
in an accident in which <strong>the</strong><br />
front seat passenger was not<br />
wearing a seatbelt and was<br />
killed and <strong>the</strong> appellant and<br />
two o<strong>the</strong>r passengers were<br />
injured.<br />
- The ambulance attendant<br />
asked if <strong>the</strong> appellant had<br />
consumed alcohol. She stated<br />
she had had six coolers and<br />
some rum.<br />
- The investigating <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
spoke to <strong>the</strong> attendant who<br />
disclosed <strong>the</strong> details <strong>of</strong> his<br />
conversation with <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant.<br />
- A physician took a blood<br />
sample from <strong>the</strong> appellant for<br />
<strong>the</strong> purposes <strong>of</strong> diagnosis and<br />
treatment.<br />
- Police obtained a search<br />
warrant to seize <strong>the</strong> blood.<br />
- The police suspected <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant <strong>of</strong> involvement with<br />
illegal weapons.<br />
- They arranged for someone<br />
to phone his house and<br />
inform him that <strong>the</strong> police<br />
were coming with a search<br />
warrant to search <strong>the</strong><br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8;<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
253(b), 255(2), 255(3).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> ambulance attendant violate <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant’s rights when he conveyed<br />
information to <strong>the</strong> police regarding <strong>the</strong><br />
amount that she drank?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> way in which <strong>the</strong> police<br />
obtained <strong>the</strong> evidence (calling and getting <strong>the</strong><br />
accused out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> house) a violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (taking bodily substances without warrant is presumed to be<br />
unreasonable).<br />
- (1) The information provided to <strong>the</strong> police by <strong>the</strong> ambulance attendant was not <strong>the</strong><br />
private, intimate information protected by s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
• The information was volunteered in response to <strong>the</strong> attendant's inquiries.<br />
• <strong>On</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer had information about alcohol consumption, he was under a duty<br />
to investigate fur<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
• The attendant was not reporting to <strong>the</strong> police but simply fulfilling <strong>the</strong><br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> his job.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects a person’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) When <strong>the</strong> appellant came out <strong>of</strong> his house with a bag and entered his vehicle,<br />
<strong>the</strong> totality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> circumstances afforded a proper basis for a reasonable and<br />
probable belief that he was engaged in criminal activity.<br />
• At that point, <strong>the</strong> police had lawful grounds to arrest him. The search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> truck<br />
was lawful.<br />
- Ref. to facts <strong>of</strong> Edwards.<br />
- Ref. to Wong.<br />
33
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Surveillance<br />
(Wiretap)<br />
R. v. Cheung<br />
[1997] B.C.J. No.<br />
2282<br />
Braidwood J.A.;<br />
Newbury and Hall<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level (Leave<br />
to appeal dismissed<br />
by SCC)<br />
Surveillance<br />
Wiretap<br />
R. v. Nenadic<br />
1997 CanLII 3802<br />
(BC C.A.)<br />
premises (even though this<br />
wasn’t true).<br />
- This caused <strong>the</strong> appellant to<br />
leave his residence with a bag<br />
<strong>of</strong> possessions that turned out<br />
to include drugs, jewellery<br />
and weapons.<br />
- As he was leaving, <strong>the</strong><br />
police arrested <strong>the</strong> appellant,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n searched his truck<br />
contemporaneously with <strong>the</strong><br />
arrest.<br />
- A shipment <strong>of</strong> heroin was<br />
seized when <strong>the</strong> courier,<br />
Copon, was arrested upon her<br />
arrival in Vancouver.<br />
- The accused's involvement<br />
in an agreement to import<br />
<strong>the</strong>se drugs was established<br />
through a tapped telephone<br />
conversation between him<br />
and a third party, Tam,<br />
following Copon's arrest.<br />
- Police entered <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
home before a warrant had<br />
been issued.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 185.<br />
- (1) Did using <strong>the</strong> wiretap information to<br />
arrest <strong>the</strong> accused violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er s.8 and s.24(2). - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> search unreasonable?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) At <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> application for <strong>the</strong> wiretap, reasonable grounds existed to<br />
believe that <strong>the</strong> accused, Tam, and o<strong>the</strong>rs were on <strong>the</strong> verge <strong>of</strong> importing a kilogram<br />
<strong>of</strong> cocaine into <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />
• The accused's privacy rights were not infringed by interceptions made under one<br />
authorization.<br />
- (2) Section 24 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er is a remedial section which may only be relied upon<br />
by one whose substantive individual rights have been violated.<br />
• There was no violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> wiretap information should not<br />
be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 is a personal right that protects people - not places).<br />
(1) R. v. Silveira (S.C.C.) (1995), a case concerning searches under <strong>the</strong> Narcotics<br />
Control Act, applies to searches under <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code, and applying it to <strong>the</strong><br />
entry in this case renders <strong>the</strong> entry contrary to s.8.<br />
Ryan J.A.; Rowles<br />
and Proudfoot JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Property search –<br />
Home (warrantless<br />
search)<br />
Brazier v. Vancouver<br />
(City <strong>of</strong>)<br />
[1997] B.C.J. No.<br />
- Brazier parked his vehicle<br />
in a no parking zone contrary<br />
to a city bylaw.<br />
(2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> bylaw violate <strong>the</strong> accused’s s. 8<br />
rights?<br />
(2) The trial judge’s finding that admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence would not bring <strong>the</strong><br />
administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute is reasonable.<br />
• The police acted in good faith, discovered real evidence in exigent<br />
circumstances, and <strong>the</strong> trial would not be rendered unfair by admitting <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence.<br />
- The City had a valid purpose in controlling illegal parking.<br />
-Even if taking <strong>the</strong> car constituted a seizure under s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er, it was<br />
34
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
2636<br />
Goldie J.A.; Rowles<br />
and Huddart JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Property - vehicle<br />
R. v. Piche<br />
[1996] B.C.J. No.<br />
2600<br />
Gibbs J.A.;<br />
McEachern and Legg<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person (body search)<br />
R. v. Hutchings<br />
[1996] B.C.J. No.<br />
3060<br />
McEachern C.J.B.C.;<br />
MacFarlane and<br />
Prowse JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level (leave to<br />
appeal dismissed at<br />
SCC)<br />
Property search-<br />
Home<br />
(Hydro/Electrical/<br />
- His vehicle was ticketed and<br />
towed pursuant to <strong>the</strong><br />
Impounding Bylaw, and he<br />
had to pay $17 to retrieve it.<br />
-Brazier claims that s. 3(a) <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Impounding Bylaw<br />
violated his rights under<br />
section 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- The accused was charged<br />
with a robbery committed by<br />
a masked man.<br />
-After <strong>the</strong> accused was<br />
caught by police <strong>the</strong>y found a<br />
bag with lots <strong>of</strong> money in his<br />
pants.<br />
- The accused couldn’t say<br />
where <strong>the</strong> money had come<br />
from or where he lived.<br />
- He was <strong>the</strong>n taken to <strong>the</strong><br />
police station and detained.<br />
- While detained, <strong>the</strong> police<br />
investigated <strong>the</strong> money found<br />
on <strong>the</strong> accused and<br />
discovered <strong>the</strong> bills were<br />
marked as coming from a<br />
bank.<br />
- Police set up surveillance <strong>of</strong><br />
a property, but saw nothing<br />
indicating <strong>the</strong> barn was used<br />
for a large cannabis<br />
cultivation operation, as<br />
alleged by an informant.<br />
- The RCMP contacted BC<br />
Tel, which verified that <strong>the</strong><br />
phone was registered to<br />
Hutchings' sister.<br />
- Hydro records showed <strong>the</strong><br />
barn's electrical consumption<br />
was low, which suggested<br />
that electrical power was<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 9. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> accused’s s. 8 <strong>Chart</strong>er right<br />
violated in that <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer had no reasonable<br />
or probable grounds to search and seize <strong>the</strong><br />
money and to make fur<strong>the</strong>r inquiries<br />
regarding its origin?<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 10(b);<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
686(1)(b)(iii);<br />
- Narcotic Control Act.<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong>re a violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er with respect to <strong>the</strong> hydro bill,<br />
telephone information or <strong>the</strong> FLIR?<br />
• NO<br />
authorized by law and <strong>the</strong> law is reasonable in light <strong>of</strong> its purpose and need.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) The appellant had little or no expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in respect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> money<br />
given that it had been in <strong>the</strong> custody <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> police since his initial lawful arrest.<br />
- (2) However, even if <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violated section 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er, <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence should be admitted because<strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence would not bring<br />
<strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute.<br />
- (1) The telephone number did not disclose Hutchings’ personal “core” information<br />
(as discussed in Plant), and it did not qualify as information for which he had a<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
• Hutchings' reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> property was<br />
lessened by <strong>the</strong> hydro bills which gave hydro a right <strong>of</strong> entry (Benham case).<br />
• Hutchings had no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy regarding <strong>the</strong> escape <strong>of</strong> heat<br />
from <strong>the</strong> barn (FLIR didn’t reveal any new information and just aided <strong>the</strong> naked<br />
eye to see what was being emitted from <strong>the</strong> house – see also Binnie’s argument in<br />
Tessling)<br />
• There was sufficient admissible evidence in <strong>the</strong> information to justify issuing <strong>the</strong><br />
warrant for <strong>the</strong> barn.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information).<br />
- Ref. to Tessling (can’t have reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> heat<br />
35
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
FLIR Searches) –<br />
R. v. Krist<br />
[1995] B.C.J. No.<br />
1606<br />
Rowles J.A.;<br />
Hollinrake and Prowse<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property search-<br />
Home – garbage/<br />
perimeter search<br />
Fieldhouse v. British<br />
Columbia<br />
[1995] B.C.J. No. 975<br />
Gibbs, J.A.;<br />
Hollinrake and<br />
Lambert JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(Urinalysis Program)<br />
R. v. Seney<br />
[1994] B.C.J. No.<br />
1638<br />
being diverted.<br />
- Police also engaged in FLIR<br />
to take aerial heat<br />
photographs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dwelling<br />
- Hutchings challenged <strong>the</strong><br />
validity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> search warrant<br />
for <strong>the</strong> barn.<br />
- After receiving information<br />
about a marijuana growing<br />
operation in <strong>the</strong> appellant's<br />
home, police went to <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant's residence where<br />
<strong>the</strong>y noticed 3 garbage bags<br />
on <strong>the</strong> side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> road.<br />
- They seized 2 bags without<br />
a warrant and, upon searching<br />
<strong>the</strong>m, found: four small<br />
marijuana plants, remnants <strong>of</strong><br />
some paraphernalia indicative<br />
<strong>of</strong> a marijuana grow op, and a<br />
bank account statement in <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant’s name.<br />
- Police got a search warrant<br />
based on contents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bags.<br />
- Fieldhouse claims that<br />
section 54(b) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Corrections and Conditional<br />
Release Act and sections 60<br />
and 63 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Corrections and<br />
Conditional Release<br />
Regulations are contrary to<br />
sections 7, 8, 12 and 15 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- The impugned sections<br />
authorized a mandatory<br />
urinalysis program.<br />
- In search <strong>of</strong> signs <strong>of</strong> drug<br />
cultivation, police conducted<br />
a perimeter search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s home without a<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> police’s search and seizure <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> accused’s garbage a violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8?<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 12, 15,<br />
24;<br />
- Constitution Act, 1982, s.<br />
52(1);<br />
- Corrections and<br />
Conditional Release Act,<br />
S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 2, 3, 4,<br />
46, 54(b);<br />
- Corrections and<br />
Conditional Release<br />
Regulations SOR/92-620,<br />
ss. 60, 63, 66.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Narcotic Control Act, s.<br />
6.<br />
• NO<br />
(1) Do <strong>the</strong>se sections contravene s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> unlawful perimeter search violate<br />
s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
emenating from home).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- (1) Putting material in <strong>the</strong> garbage amounts to abandoning it. It signifies that <strong>the</strong><br />
material was no longer something <strong>of</strong> value or importance to <strong>the</strong> person disposing <strong>of</strong><br />
it and that <strong>the</strong>re was no reason or need to retain it (similar to DMF case).<br />
• <strong>On</strong>ce property is abandoned, <strong>the</strong>re is no longer a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy in respect <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; only protects a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- Ref. to Dyment.<br />
- (1) Given <strong>the</strong> nature and extent <strong>of</strong> drug abuse in prisons, <strong>the</strong> appellants have no<br />
greater reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in regard to urinalysis than someone else<br />
would, in ano<strong>the</strong>r context, in regard to a frisk search.<br />
- The impugned regulations promote security and safety.<br />
- Given <strong>the</strong> limited privacy interest and minimal intrusion, <strong>the</strong> law was reasonable,<br />
as were <strong>the</strong> provisions to carry it out.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (3 Kokesh tests for determining whe<strong>the</strong>r a search is<br />
reasonable are:<br />
1.Is <strong>the</strong> search authorized by law?<br />
2.Is <strong>the</strong> law reasonable?<br />
3.Is <strong>the</strong> manner <strong>of</strong> carrying out <strong>the</strong> search reasonable?)<br />
- (1) The <strong>of</strong>ficer in charge did not have <strong>the</strong> required subjective belief that <strong>the</strong>re were<br />
grounds upon which a search warrant could be obtained before <strong>the</strong> perimeter search<br />
was undertaken.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer had acted in good faith. There were reasonable grounds for a warrant<br />
36
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Taylor J.A.;<br />
MacFarlane and<br />
Hutcheon JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
warrant.<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
without <strong>the</strong> need for fur<strong>the</strong>r evidence obtained in <strong>the</strong> perimeter search.<br />
- (2) The evidence should be admitted in pursuant to s. 24(2).<br />
- The search was conducted in good faith per section 24(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
Property search-<br />
Home<br />
(Perimeter Searches)<br />
Pierre v. Pacific Press<br />
Ltd.<br />
[1994] 113 D.L.R.<br />
(4th) 511<br />
Taylor J.A.; Goldie<br />
J.A. (con); McEachern<br />
J.A. (dis)<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(Info/identity)<br />
R. v. Evans<br />
[1994] 93 C.C.C. (3d)<br />
130<br />
Southin J.A.;<br />
Proudfoot J.A. (con);<br />
Rowles J.A. (dis).<br />
*Affirmed SCC<br />
- Pierre brought an action<br />
against <strong>the</strong> defendants<br />
seeking damages for<br />
psychological illness suffered<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> publication<br />
<strong>of</strong> interviews with Pierre<br />
soon after she had witnessed<br />
a murder and while <strong>the</strong><br />
murderer was still at large.<br />
- The reports identified Pierre<br />
by name and showed her<br />
picture.<br />
-The action involved an<br />
application to strike out a jury<br />
notice, which was dismissed.<br />
-Pierre appeals that judgment<br />
on <strong>the</strong> basis that <strong>the</strong> trial<br />
would raise issues <strong>of</strong> an<br />
intricate or complex character<br />
unsuited for a jury.<br />
- Police went to <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
home without a warrant,<br />
knocked on <strong>the</strong> door and,<br />
when <strong>the</strong> door was opened,<br />
detected <strong>the</strong> odour <strong>of</strong><br />
marijuana.<br />
- Police <strong>the</strong>n entered <strong>the</strong><br />
house and conducted a search<br />
to secure it. They arrested<br />
- Privacy Act, s. 1.;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 2(b), 7;<br />
- Negligence Act.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 1, 8, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 687;<br />
- Narcotic Control Act, ss.<br />
3(1), 4(1), 6(1), 10, 12.<br />
NOTE - In a lot <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se cases where <strong>the</strong>re<br />
was a problem with obtaining a search<br />
warrant it seems as if <strong>the</strong> courts are trying to<br />
find in favour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
consequences on <strong>the</strong> broader social interest <strong>of</strong><br />
finding for <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
- (1) Were <strong>the</strong> appellant’s privacy rights<br />
violated when <strong>the</strong> reports were published?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> way in which <strong>the</strong> evidence was<br />
obtained violate section 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search <strong>of</strong> a home).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (in order for "good faith" to be established in <strong>the</strong>se cases, for <strong>the</strong><br />
purposes <strong>of</strong> s. 24(2), <strong>the</strong> Crown must show that <strong>the</strong> police not only believed <strong>the</strong>y were<br />
entitled in law to conduct <strong>the</strong> warrantless perimeter search, but believed also, on<br />
reasonable grounds, that an <strong>of</strong>fence under <strong>the</strong> Narcotic Control Act was being<br />
committed).<br />
- (1) To <strong>the</strong> extent that determining <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> privacy protection requires a<br />
weighing <strong>of</strong> interests, as <strong>the</strong> appellants say it does, that balancing is no more<br />
complex or intricate in this context than in that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> negligence claim.<br />
- Therefore, privacy was discussed along with negligence.<br />
- (1) It was only by licence <strong>of</strong> law (as discussed in R v. Grant), not by licence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
householder, that <strong>the</strong> police could enter to enforce <strong>the</strong> law.<br />
- Therefore, <strong>the</strong> “knock on” visit, as an investigative technique (i.e. by smelling <strong>the</strong><br />
air once <strong>the</strong> door has been opened) would have to be abandoned on as an<br />
investigative technique would have to be abandoned.<br />
- (2) Despite <strong>the</strong>re being a s. 8 breach, because a large amount <strong>of</strong> marijuana was<br />
discovered (approximately 11 1/4 pounds), consistent with a commercial operation,<br />
and since trafficking is a serious <strong>of</strong>fence, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Court</strong> did not exclude <strong>the</strong> evidence.<br />
37
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Property search-<br />
Home<br />
(Knocking Searches)<br />
R. v. Johnson<br />
1994 CanLII 2108<br />
Hinkson, J.A.;<br />
Lambert and Ryan<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person (Breathalyser<br />
Analysis)<br />
R. v. Concepcion<br />
[1994] 24 W.C.B. (2d)<br />
543<br />
Finch J.A.; Wood and<br />
Donald JJ.A. (con) .<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property - Home<br />
(warrantless search)<br />
R. v. Copan<br />
[1994] B.C.J. No. 188<br />
Hollinrake J.A.;<br />
Hutcheon and Cummin<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Property - vehicle<br />
both occupants.<br />
- The accused was suspected<br />
<strong>of</strong> drunk driving while still in<br />
her driveway and she refused<br />
to give a breath sample.<br />
- She argued that police<br />
violated her reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y entered onto her<br />
property without her<br />
permission or a warrant.<br />
- Police obtained a search<br />
warrant based on information<br />
that "victims" <strong>of</strong> a robbery<br />
had identified <strong>the</strong> accused,<br />
while in fact only one victim<br />
had done so.<br />
- While arresting <strong>the</strong> accused,<br />
who was not clo<strong>the</strong>d at <strong>the</strong><br />
time, <strong>the</strong> police followed him<br />
to his bedroom so that he<br />
could get dressed before<br />
taking him to <strong>the</strong> station.<br />
- The accused was charged<br />
with armed robbery and<br />
arson.<br />
- He was found with marked<br />
money on him, which was<br />
later used to convict him.<br />
- The money was placed in an<br />
envelope and <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
argued he had reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong><br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8;<br />
- Motor Vehicle Act, s.<br />
77(1).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24 (2);<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 344.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with regard to giving a<br />
breath sample and did <strong>the</strong> police violate s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> mistake in <strong>the</strong> application for a<br />
search warrant render <strong>the</strong> search in violation<br />
<strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Did following <strong>the</strong> accused into his<br />
bedroom violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong><br />
envelope with <strong>the</strong> marked bills?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
- The exclusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence would bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into<br />
disrepute.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search <strong>of</strong> home).<br />
- Brief ref. to Plant.<br />
- (1) Having given police her vehicle registration, which included her address, <strong>the</strong><br />
accused had no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy and it was not incumbent on <strong>the</strong><br />
police to resort to alternative means <strong>of</strong> investigation.<br />
- The police were acting pursuant to s.77(1) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Motor Vehicle Act R.S.B.C. 1979<br />
c.288 in entering <strong>the</strong> property (believing that <strong>the</strong> vehicle was involved or could be<br />
involved in an accident) and <strong>the</strong>refore had legal authorization to be on her property.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search <strong>of</strong> residence).<br />
- (1) The search warrant was obtained in good faith.<br />
- Permitting an arrested person to be comfortably and appropriately clo<strong>the</strong>d before<br />
taking him to <strong>the</strong> station was part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> arresting process.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer was fully justified in accompanying <strong>the</strong> accused to his bedroom for that<br />
purpose and <strong>the</strong> bedroom was, in a real and practical sense, part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> immediate<br />
surroundings.<br />
- The searches were <strong>the</strong>refore well within <strong>the</strong> limits <strong>of</strong> valid searches incidental to<br />
arrest.<br />
- The fairness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial was not affected and <strong>the</strong> evidence should <strong>the</strong>refore be<br />
admitted, even if it had been necessary to consider <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> s. 24(2).<br />
- (2) There was no unfairness or error in <strong>the</strong> manner in which <strong>the</strong> trial judge<br />
summarized and reviewed portions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence.<br />
- (1) The police may look closely at property seized upon a person’s arrest.<br />
-People have a lower reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy after arrest and detention<br />
(discussed in North and Olsen).<br />
- The bills were taken from accused during a legitimate search upon his arrest.<br />
- The trial judge correctly concluded that <strong>the</strong> accused had no control over <strong>the</strong>se<br />
articles and <strong>the</strong>refore could not have had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
- (2) Even if s. 8 had been technically breached, <strong>the</strong> evidence should properly have<br />
been admitted under s. 24(2).<br />
- The broader public interest mitigates in favour <strong>of</strong> allowing this evidence. To do<br />
38
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Wagner<br />
[1994] B.C.J. No. 101<br />
Hollinrake J.A.;<br />
Taylor and Gibbs JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Property – vehicle<br />
(warrantless)<br />
R. v. Olson<br />
[1993] B.C.J. No.<br />
2529<br />
Gibbs J.A.; Corro<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
and Southin JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
envelope.<br />
- The appellant lived with his<br />
aunt in her trailer.<br />
- The police suspected <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant <strong>of</strong> wrongdoing and<br />
obtained <strong>the</strong> aunt's consent to<br />
search <strong>the</strong> trailer without a<br />
warrant.<br />
- The police seized certain<br />
items and <strong>the</strong> appellant was<br />
charged with breaking and<br />
entering and possession <strong>of</strong><br />
stolen property.<br />
- Following his arrest, <strong>the</strong><br />
accused made calls while in<br />
custody.<br />
- These calls were intercepted<br />
and recorded by <strong>the</strong> police.<br />
- The accused argued that <strong>the</strong><br />
transfer to <strong>the</strong> RCMP <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
recordings was a seizure.<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 9, 24(2). - (1) Did obtaining only <strong>the</strong> aunt’s consent<br />
and searching without <strong>the</strong> warrant violate s. 8<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24.;<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 344.<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Were <strong>the</strong> recordings unreasonably<br />
seized?<br />
• NO<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise would bring <strong>the</strong> justice system into disrepute.<br />
- Admitting this evidence would not render <strong>the</strong> accused’s trial unfair.<br />
- (1) Before <strong>the</strong> police commenced <strong>the</strong>ir search <strong>the</strong>y had grounds to obtain a<br />
warrant.<br />
-In fact, police were in <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> obtaining a warrant and did not obtain it<br />
because an <strong>of</strong>ficer at <strong>the</strong> trailer telephoned to advise that <strong>the</strong> aunt had consented to<br />
<strong>the</strong> search.<br />
- (1) All those within <strong>the</strong> detention centre were informed that no privacy attached to<br />
communications made while in <strong>the</strong> centre.<br />
- <strong>On</strong>ce convicted and in detention, <strong>the</strong> reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is low (first<br />
said in R v. Stillman, also mentioned in North and Copan)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 only protects a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy; core biographical information).<br />
Surveillance -<br />
Wiretap (Prison)<br />
inmate<br />
R. v. Olson<br />
[1993] B.C.J. No.<br />
1344<br />
Toy J.A.; Legg and<br />
Rowles JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Surveillance -<br />
Wiretap (prison<br />
inmate)<br />
R. v. Sandhu<br />
[1993] B.C.J. No.<br />
1279<br />
- The appellant was convicted<br />
<strong>of</strong> robbery based mainly on<br />
telephone conversations<br />
intercepted pursuant to<br />
section 43 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Correction<br />
Centre rules and regulations.<br />
-These calls were recorded<br />
while <strong>the</strong> accused was<br />
detained at <strong>the</strong> pre-trial<br />
centre.<br />
- Police searched <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s bags at <strong>the</strong> airport<br />
and found 2kg <strong>of</strong> cocaine.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8;<br />
- Constitution Act, 1982, s.<br />
52(1).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 495,<br />
495(1)(a);<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> this evidence violate s. 8<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> bags<br />
at <strong>the</strong> airport?<br />
- (1) There were no exceptional circumstances justifying <strong>the</strong> application.<br />
- The striking down <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rwise validly enacted legislation was a serious matter<br />
which should have been raised in <strong>the</strong> proper forum so that evidence relevant to <strong>the</strong><br />
issue could be adduced and considered.<br />
- (1) There was no evidence linking <strong>the</strong> accused with <strong>the</strong> bag or its contents as <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
date <strong>of</strong> seizure.<br />
- Although <strong>the</strong> bag and its contents were found in <strong>the</strong> accused's apartment <strong>the</strong><br />
39
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Prowse J.A.; Toy and<br />
Southin JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level (Leave<br />
to appeal dismissed<br />
by SCC)<br />
Property - vehicle<br />
- The bag was sent by an<br />
accomplice.<br />
- Upon listening to a<br />
conversation through an<br />
apartment door, police feared<br />
<strong>the</strong> destruction <strong>of</strong> evidence<br />
and entered to arrest <strong>the</strong><br />
accused and accomplices.<br />
- Narcotic Control Act, s.<br />
10. • NO<br />
- (2) Was <strong>the</strong>re a violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy when <strong>the</strong><br />
police stood at <strong>the</strong> door <strong>of</strong> apartment and<br />
eavesdropped (ear to door)?<br />
• YES<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
following day, <strong>the</strong> privacy interest which <strong>the</strong> accused asserted was a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in his home and not with respect to <strong>the</strong> bag and its contents.<br />
- The accused <strong>the</strong>refore did not have standing to challenge <strong>the</strong> admissibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence obtained in <strong>the</strong> search and seizure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bag at <strong>the</strong> airport.<br />
- A person inside an apartment could have no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with<br />
respect to conversations which could be overheard with <strong>the</strong> unaided human ear from<br />
outside <strong>the</strong> apartment.<br />
- The public has a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong>ir home, which includes<br />
<strong>the</strong> expectation that a person's conversations, carried on in a "normal" tone <strong>of</strong> voice,<br />
will not be eavesdropped upon by police in <strong>the</strong> manner which occurred here:<br />
someone using <strong>the</strong> hallway in a normal manner couldn’t have overheard <strong>the</strong><br />
conversation taking place in <strong>the</strong> accused's apartment.<br />
- (2) The invasion <strong>of</strong> privacy in this case was not <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> magnitude <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> invasion <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy accompanying searches by means <strong>of</strong> electronic devices.<br />
- Admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence would not deprive <strong>the</strong> accused <strong>of</strong> a fair trial.<br />
- Police were acting in good faith and were in hot pursuit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused and his<br />
accomplice.<br />
- The evidence obtained as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> search should not be excluded here under<br />
s. 24(2).<br />
R. v. Melenchuk<br />
[1993] B.C.J. No. 558<br />
Gibbs J.A.;<br />
Corro<strong>the</strong>rs and Prowse<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person;<br />
Procedural fairness<br />
R. v. Dilling<br />
[1993] B.C.J. No. 865<br />
- The accused was charged<br />
with, and convicted <strong>of</strong>,<br />
counterfeiting U.S. money.<br />
- He challenged <strong>the</strong> search<br />
warrant based on alleged<br />
deficiencies in <strong>the</strong><br />
information used to obtain it.<br />
- The Provincial <strong>Court</strong> judge<br />
found that none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> alleged<br />
misstatements or half-truths<br />
were intended to mislead <strong>the</strong><br />
issuing Justice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Peace.<br />
- The subject <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> impugned<br />
statements was trivial.<br />
-The appellant was convicted<br />
<strong>of</strong> bargaining in a public<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24, 24(2).;<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 449,<br />
450(b).<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
213(1)(c), 495, 495(1)(b),<br />
- Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did taking <strong>the</strong> appellant’s photograph<br />
while he was detained violate his rights under<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (warrant obtained in breach <strong>of</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er not valid; police must act<br />
in good faith when conducting search).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s.8 protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy only).<br />
- (1) Where <strong>the</strong>re is no intent to mislead, <strong>the</strong> appellant must prove that <strong>the</strong><br />
misstatements or half-truths were so significant as to affect <strong>the</strong> information as a<br />
whole in terms <strong>of</strong> rendering it misleading,which he was not able to do.<br />
- (2) If <strong>the</strong>re is deliberate deception in obtaining <strong>the</strong> warrant, it would be quashed<br />
and <strong>the</strong> evidence obtained through execution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> warrant would likely be<br />
excluded, but this was not <strong>the</strong> case here so <strong>the</strong> evidence should not be excluded.<br />
- Thus, even accepting that <strong>the</strong>re were misstatements, omissions and half-truths in<br />
<strong>the</strong> information for <strong>the</strong> warrant, <strong>the</strong> evidence was at risk <strong>of</strong> exclusion under s. 24(2)<br />
only if those shortcomings were in fur<strong>the</strong>rance <strong>of</strong> a deliberate intent to mislead.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> perimeter search <strong>of</strong> residence; test to determine<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r search was unreasonable).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) The photographic record was a means <strong>of</strong> refreshing <strong>the</strong> recollection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
undercover <strong>of</strong>ficer as to <strong>the</strong> identity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> person who communicated with her on<br />
40
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Goldie J.A.;<br />
McEachern and<br />
Taggert JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(photo/identity)<br />
place for <strong>the</strong> sexual services<br />
<strong>of</strong> a prostitute.<br />
- He alleged that <strong>the</strong> police<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers, in photographing<br />
him without his consent<br />
while he was detained,<br />
violated his <strong>Chart</strong>er rights (ss<br />
7, 8 and 10(a) and(b)).<br />
495(2)(d)(i);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 10,<br />
10(a), 10(b), 24(2).<br />
s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
(2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
<strong>the</strong> night in question.<br />
- It was also one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> means by which <strong>the</strong> detaining <strong>of</strong>ficers could be satisfied it<br />
was in <strong>the</strong> public interest that <strong>the</strong> appellant be arrested.<br />
- (2) The evidence should not be excluded because <strong>the</strong> sole purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> unposed<br />
photograph was to preserve evidence <strong>of</strong> identification, which is "real evidence" <strong>of</strong> an<br />
identity that existed before <strong>the</strong> police came on <strong>the</strong> scene.<br />
- This must be distinguished from participation in a line-up, which requires an<br />
intentional act by <strong>the</strong> accused giving rise to evidence emanating from <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
R. v. Campbell<br />
[1993] B.C.J. No.<br />
2752<br />
Wood, J.A.; Legg and<br />
Lambert JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property search-<br />
Home (Knocking)<br />
R. v. Boersma<br />
[1993] B.C.J. No.<br />
2748<br />
Lambert J.A.; Taylor<br />
and Prowse JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* Affirmed at SCC<br />
Property search-<br />
Home – perimeter<br />
search<br />
- Police <strong>of</strong>ficers approached<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused’s residence and<br />
knocked on <strong>the</strong> front door.<br />
- When <strong>the</strong> door was opened,<br />
potentially stolen property<br />
was visible inside <strong>the</strong> house.<br />
-Upon entering <strong>the</strong> house,<br />
more stolen goods were<br />
recognized and <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
was arrested.<br />
- Two police <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
discovered a road barred by a<br />
padlocked chain.<br />
- The accused was beyond <strong>the</strong><br />
fenced area.<br />
- The police crossed over <strong>the</strong><br />
fence, approached <strong>the</strong><br />
accused, and discovered<br />
marijuana cultivation in<br />
progress.<br />
- They arrested <strong>the</strong> two<br />
people cultivating <strong>the</strong><br />
marijuana.<br />
- The cultivation was taking<br />
place on Crown land adjacent<br />
to land over which <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r<br />
<strong>of</strong> one accused asserted<br />
ownership or occupancy<br />
rights.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
686(1)(a).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> knocking and seizure constitute a<br />
violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8. 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police breach <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy?<br />
• trial judge said YES<br />
• court <strong>of</strong> appeal said NO<br />
(2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Duarte (applied)<br />
- (1) The knock and <strong>the</strong> seizure violated <strong>the</strong> reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy to<br />
which <strong>the</strong> occupants were entitled in <strong>the</strong>ir own home.<br />
- Since <strong>the</strong> police had no warrant, <strong>the</strong> search was unreasonable.<br />
- (2) However, despite <strong>the</strong> violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er, <strong>the</strong> evidence should be<br />
admitted pursuant to s. 24(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er (related to <strong>the</strong> broader public interest)<br />
- Admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence wouldn’t bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police must act in good faith when conducting search).<br />
- Ref. to Mellenthin.<br />
- (1) There can be no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy on Crown land that is<br />
accessible to everyone.<br />
- The accused did not possess <strong>the</strong> land and <strong>the</strong>re was <strong>the</strong>refore no reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
- There is a different reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with regard to activities<br />
being carried on in a private house than <strong>the</strong>re is for activities being carried out in <strong>the</strong><br />
open air and particularly in <strong>the</strong> open air on Crown land.<br />
- (2) There was no breach <strong>of</strong> reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy and <strong>the</strong>refore no<br />
breach <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- It is <strong>the</strong>refore not necessary to do a s. 24(2) analysis.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (private dwelling vs. Crown land).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (dignity, integrity, and autonomy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused not affected).<br />
41
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Neill<br />
[1993] 33 B.C.A.C.<br />
118<br />
Taggart J.A.; Wood<br />
and Gibbs JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property search-<br />
Home<br />
(Perimeter Searches)<br />
R. v. Blinch<br />
1993 CanLII 1433<br />
(BC C.A.)<br />
Rowles J.A.;<br />
Southin and Legg<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Property Search -<br />
Home<br />
- A police <strong>of</strong>ficer received<br />
information from an<br />
informant that marijuana was<br />
being grown on <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
premises.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer's believed <strong>the</strong> tip<br />
was reliable based on<br />
previous interaction with <strong>the</strong><br />
informant.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer walked onto <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s property to check<br />
<strong>the</strong> house number and he<br />
observed that <strong>the</strong> basement<br />
windows were blocked.<br />
- Finding this suspicious, <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer obtained a warrant to<br />
search <strong>the</strong> premises.<br />
- Based on information<br />
provided by a neighbour, <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s wife fears her<br />
husband will kill himself,<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir kids and his in-laws.<br />
- The neighbour, who had<br />
been authorized to enter <strong>the</strong><br />
premises by <strong>the</strong> accused and<br />
his wife, granted police<br />
access/entry to <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
residence.<br />
- Police obtained a search<br />
warrant and seized wills,<br />
guns and ammunition.<br />
– They did not disclose in <strong>the</strong><br />
application for a warrant that<br />
police had previously entered<br />
<strong>the</strong> property.<br />
- The appellant seeks to have<br />
<strong>the</strong> handwritten wills<br />
excluded from evidence.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er<br />
by walking onto <strong>the</strong> accused’s property to<br />
check <strong>the</strong> house number?<br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8.<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> warrantless search violate <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’ s.8 rights?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Was <strong>the</strong> failure to disclose <strong>the</strong><br />
warrantless search sufficient to vitiate <strong>the</strong><br />
search warrant that was subsequently issued?<br />
• NO<br />
- (3) If <strong>the</strong> search warrant wasn’t vitiated,<br />
should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under 24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) There could be no expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in a house number so no infringement<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused's rights under <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er occurred.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer's conduct in walking parallel to <strong>the</strong> front <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> house and looking<br />
down <strong>the</strong> side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> house while leaving <strong>the</strong> premises was no more than a most<br />
insignificant trespass.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer went on <strong>the</strong> premises to confirm <strong>the</strong> residential address ra<strong>the</strong>r than to<br />
conduct a perimeter search.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (evidence obtained through a <strong>Chart</strong>er breach invalid; boundaries<br />
<strong>of</strong> a perimeter search <strong>of</strong> home; facts <strong>of</strong> two cases compared).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; Hunter standard).<br />
- (1) Warrantless searches are presumed unreasonable.<br />
- The search was not o<strong>the</strong>rwise authorized by statute. The neighbour who provided<br />
access could not waive <strong>the</strong> accused’s rights.<br />
- At issue was <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> “consent searches” without a warrant. This was<br />
recognized as an area not well developed in <strong>the</strong> case law.<br />
- (2) Police learned nothing new when <strong>the</strong>y entered but ra<strong>the</strong>r confirmed what <strong>the</strong><br />
neighbour had told <strong>the</strong>m. Her information would have been sufficient for <strong>the</strong><br />
issuance <strong>of</strong> warrant.<br />
- If a Justice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Peace is misled <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> warrant will be vitiated (and admitting<br />
evidence obtained in such circumstances would bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice<br />
into disrepute).<br />
- (3) Factors (following Collins):<br />
• trial Fairness;<br />
• “real” evidence obtained in violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er will “rarely operate unfairly for<br />
that reason alone”;<br />
• <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er violation: <strong>Court</strong> must discourage egregious police<br />
conduct. Factors in determining seriousness are whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> violation was<br />
deliberate, wilful or flagrant, or committed in good faith; whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> violation<br />
was motivated by urgency or necessity to preserve evidence; and whe<strong>the</strong>r o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
investigative techniques were available.<br />
- In this case police conduct not egregious because: police faced an urgent need for<br />
42
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
information in an explosive situation where human life at risk; and it was not<br />
unreasonable for police to assume that neighbour had implied authority (from<br />
accused’s spouse) to grant access.<br />
- The law regarding s.8 violations on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> third-party consents is not well<br />
developed. Police action was characterized as a good faith mistake ra<strong>the</strong>r than a<br />
flagrant disregard for <strong>Chart</strong>er rights.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>fence is serious - many police were required to ensure that lives were not<br />
endangered and evidence is needed to convict. Excluding evidence would have a<br />
more negative impact on administration <strong>of</strong> justice than admitting it.<br />
Pierre v. Pacific Press<br />
Ltd.<br />
1993 CanLII 577 (BC<br />
C.A.)<br />
Taylor J.A.;<br />
McEachern and Goldie<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level (Leave<br />
to appeal dismissed<br />
by SCC)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
and Photographs<br />
R. v. Arason<br />
1992 CanLII 1008 (BC<br />
C.A.)<br />
Cumming J.A.;<br />
Proudfoot and Goldie<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Property Search –<br />
Business (perimeter<br />
search)<br />
-A woman undergoing<br />
treatment at rehabilitation<br />
centre claimed to have<br />
witnessed a murder.<br />
- Press interviewed and<br />
photographed her at <strong>the</strong><br />
centre and she subsequently<br />
asked a nurse to contact <strong>the</strong><br />
press to ask <strong>the</strong>m not to<br />
disclose her identity.<br />
- The press did disclose her<br />
identity (name and photos)<br />
and that she was a patient at<br />
<strong>the</strong> treatment centre while <strong>the</strong><br />
killers were still at large.<br />
- Police searched <strong>the</strong><br />
perimeter <strong>of</strong> a business<br />
premises, including <strong>the</strong> ro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
-The accused, who was<br />
inside, was not a lessee.<br />
-Police looked through <strong>the</strong><br />
mail box and detected <strong>the</strong><br />
smell <strong>of</strong> marijuana coming<br />
from an external vent.<br />
- The accused was observed<br />
visually and with binoculars.<br />
- Upon his arrest, <strong>the</strong><br />
- Crown Liability and<br />
Proceedings Act;<br />
-Privacy Act;<br />
-<strong>Chart</strong>er, s.2(b).<br />
- Narcotics Control Act<br />
and Criminal Code;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er s.8, s.9, s.24(2).<br />
- The issues were technical ones concerning<br />
<strong>the</strong> trial judge’s decision to refuse a jury trial.<br />
The judge’s decision was based on <strong>the</strong> fact<br />
that:<br />
• <strong>the</strong> case involved novel issues <strong>of</strong> law that<br />
are <strong>of</strong> an ‘intricate and complex<br />
character’ (<strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> Rules) and<br />
thus not suitable for a jury trial; and<br />
• <strong>the</strong> CBC is immune from jury trials<br />
under Crown Liability and Proceedings<br />
Act.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Appeal found insufficient<br />
arguments to resolve issues <strong>of</strong> law and set <strong>the</strong><br />
case down for fur<strong>the</strong>r hearing. It also found<br />
that <strong>the</strong> CBC not immune.<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong> perimeter search a violation <strong>of</strong><br />
accuseds’ s.8 rights?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Was <strong>the</strong> vehicle search a violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accuseds’ s.8 rights?<br />
• NO<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable).<br />
- Although matter was not resolved, <strong>the</strong> following were issues raised and court’s<br />
response:<br />
• The plaintiff’s claims concern <strong>the</strong> infliction <strong>of</strong> psychological injury (she worried<br />
for her safety as perpetrators were at large) and violating <strong>the</strong> Privacy Act (tort <strong>of</strong><br />
violation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
• The defendant claims that s.2(b) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er (freedom <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> press) answers a<br />
claim in negligence and under <strong>the</strong> Privacy Act. The court found that journalists<br />
have no special privilege re publishing things that may be harmful and also found<br />
that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er is no answer under Privacy Act unless <strong>the</strong>re is consent. It is a<br />
question <strong>of</strong> law whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re was a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong><br />
ga<strong>the</strong>ring <strong>of</strong> information by <strong>the</strong> press.<br />
- (1) The accused had no standing to bring a <strong>Chart</strong>er infringement complaint<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y were not <strong>the</strong> ‘occupants’ <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> premises in that <strong>the</strong>y were not lessees<br />
or owners. Even if <strong>the</strong>y were ‘occupants’, <strong>the</strong>re is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy with regard to <strong>the</strong> perimeter <strong>of</strong> a commercial premises since <strong>the</strong> exterior<br />
and <strong>the</strong> parking lot are generally accessible to <strong>the</strong> public. According to <strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> lease, even tenants had no right <strong>of</strong> control <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> exterior <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> building,<br />
including <strong>the</strong> ro<strong>of</strong>. Looking through <strong>the</strong> mail box may have been improper, but<br />
nothing seen was used.<br />
- (2) There were reasonable and probable grounds for <strong>the</strong> arrest and search;<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> unwarranted arrest and search were not unlawful. The applicable test<br />
is from Storrey (SCC): “An arrest without warrant may be made where <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
43
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
accused’s keys were seized,<br />
allowing entrance to his van.<br />
- Police searched <strong>the</strong> van a<br />
second time after arresting<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused and a hydro bill<br />
was seized.<br />
NO<br />
believes on reasonable and probable grounds that <strong>the</strong> accused has committed an<br />
indictable <strong>of</strong>fence and where such grounds are objectively justifiable. He need not<br />
establish a prima facie case for conviction before arresting.”<br />
-“A search may occur before or after formal arrest as long as <strong>the</strong> grounds for <strong>the</strong><br />
arrest exist prior to <strong>the</strong> search. A police <strong>of</strong>ficer is entitled to make a reasonable<br />
search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> person arrested and <strong>the</strong> place where he is arrested. See R. v. Debot,<br />
(1986), 30 C.C.C. (3d) 207 (<strong>On</strong>t. C.A.) at 233. Specifically, police <strong>of</strong>ficers are<br />
entitled to search an accused and <strong>the</strong> car driven by him which is in <strong>the</strong> immediate<br />
surrounding area as an incident <strong>of</strong> lawful arrest. See R. v. Speid (17 September,<br />
1992) [sic] (<strong>On</strong>t. C.A.) [since reported, (1991), 8 C.R.R. (2d) 383], leave to appeal<br />
refused, May 7, 1992).”<br />
- (3) The police were acting in good faith, <strong>the</strong>re was no capriciousness, and <strong>the</strong><br />
warrant could have been issued based on <strong>the</strong> circumstances. Excluding <strong>the</strong> evidence<br />
is more likely to bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute than admitting it.<br />
R. v. Jopowicz<br />
1992 CanLII 815<br />
(BC C.A.)<br />
Hollinrake J.A.;<br />
Legg and Rowles<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Surveillance -<br />
wiretap<br />
- An undercover police<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer taped a conversation<br />
using a concealed recording<br />
device.<br />
- The recordings were made<br />
in <strong>the</strong> accused’s place <strong>of</strong><br />
business, which he owned,<br />
and in <strong>the</strong> undercover<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer’s car.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Did recording <strong>the</strong> conversation without a<br />
warrant violate <strong>the</strong> accused’s s.8 rights?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search; police must act in good faith).<br />
- (1) It was conceded that <strong>the</strong> recording was an unreasonable search and seizure<br />
(violation <strong>of</strong> s.8).<br />
- (2) The onus is on <strong>the</strong> accused to establish that admitting evidence would bring <strong>the</strong><br />
administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute.<br />
-Following Duarte and Wiggins:<br />
• Police acted in good faith regarding <strong>the</strong>ir understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> law (<strong>the</strong>y<br />
thought one-party consent was sufficient for taping).<br />
• Police could have obtained judicial authorization – <strong>the</strong>y had reasonable and<br />
probable grounds, not mere suspicion. If <strong>the</strong>re were no reasonable/probable<br />
grounds it would bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute to admit <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence.<br />
- There was some discussion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> need to exhaust o<strong>the</strong>r investigative techniques<br />
before applying for judicial authorization to tape conversations.<br />
R. v. Ericson<br />
[1991] B.C.J. No.<br />
3763<br />
McFarlane J.A.; Legg<br />
and Hollinrake JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
- <strong>On</strong> suspicion <strong>of</strong> having<br />
stolen 33 pieces <strong>of</strong> art from a<br />
gallery, <strong>the</strong> police conducted<br />
a warantless search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> appellant's<br />
residence from which<br />
suspected stolen art could be<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8;<br />
- Criminal Code, R.S.C.<br />
1985, c. C-46, ss. 355.<br />
- (1) By searching <strong>the</strong> perimeter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s house without a warrant, did <strong>the</strong><br />
police violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES (based on Kokesch)<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) Although <strong>the</strong> search violated s.8, it was conducted in good faith, and given <strong>the</strong><br />
accused's extensive criminal record, <strong>the</strong> trial judge properly considered <strong>the</strong><br />
protection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> public to be a dominant factor.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (evidence obtained through <strong>Chart</strong>er breach invalid; police must<br />
act in good faith).<br />
44
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property search -<br />
Home - Perimeter<br />
McPherson v.<br />
Institute <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>ered<br />
Accountants <strong>of</strong><br />
British Columbia<br />
[1991] 55 B.C.L.R.<br />
(2d) 286<br />
Anderson, J.A.;<br />
Hollinrake and<br />
Cummings JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person; Records<br />
R. v. Lunn<br />
[1990] 61 C.C.C. (3d)<br />
193<br />
Hinkson J.A.;<br />
Taggart and<br />
MacFarlane JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person<br />
(Blood Sample)<br />
viewed inside.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer was not asked<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r he had a warrant to<br />
search, nor was he questioned<br />
regarding <strong>the</strong> reasons for his<br />
being on property or whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
he had authorization to enter.<br />
- The appellant was arrested<br />
and shortly <strong>the</strong>reafter a<br />
search warrant was obtained<br />
to enter <strong>the</strong> house, where four<br />
prints were found.<br />
- The bylaws <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Institute<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>ered Accountants<br />
establish a random practice<br />
review program (including<br />
“<strong>the</strong> making and taking away<br />
<strong>of</strong> documents”).<br />
- The program was<br />
challenged as violating ss. 7<br />
and 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er because<br />
<strong>of</strong> its vague and unknown<br />
standards, which make it<br />
impossible for one to defend<br />
against a charge <strong>of</strong><br />
incompetence.<br />
- The accused was involved<br />
in an accident as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
which is wife was killed.<br />
- He was taken to hospital<br />
where blood samples were<br />
taken for medical purposes.<br />
- He refused an <strong>of</strong>ficer's<br />
request for blood samples.<br />
-Two days later <strong>the</strong> police<br />
called <strong>the</strong> hospital to enquire<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r it had blood<br />
samples. After obtaining an<br />
affirmative answer from a<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8. - (1) Does <strong>the</strong> random review process violate<br />
a person’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8., 11(d). - (1) Did seizing <strong>the</strong> blood samples after <strong>the</strong><br />
accused refused to provide one constitute a<br />
violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Taking into account all relevant factors, <strong>the</strong> random review procedure<br />
enunciated in <strong>the</strong> bylaws did not <strong>of</strong>fend <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy must be<br />
breached for <strong>the</strong>re to be unreasonable search and seizure)<br />
- (1) The doctor was not an agent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state in responding to <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer's inquiry,<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er does not apply to him.<br />
- Even if it did, however, <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer didn’t request material evidence against <strong>the</strong><br />
accused, he only asked for information regarding <strong>the</strong> blood sample.<br />
-There is <strong>the</strong>refore no breach <strong>of</strong> s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- Ref. to Dyment (regarding <strong>the</strong> need for consent from <strong>the</strong> accused when taking his<br />
bodily substances).<br />
45
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Nicholson<br />
[1990] 53 C.C.C. (3d)<br />
403<br />
Toy J.A,; MacDonald<br />
and Locke JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Reversed SCC<br />
Home Search<br />
(perimeter search)<br />
R. v. Donaldson<br />
[1990] 58 C.C.C. (3d)<br />
294<br />
Hinkson J.A.;<br />
Legg and Wood JJ.A.<br />
(con)<br />
* Final Level<br />
Surveillance<br />
Wiretap/<br />
Procedural Fairness<br />
doctor, <strong>the</strong> police requested<br />
that <strong>the</strong> samples not be<br />
destroyed, obtained a search<br />
warrant, and seized <strong>the</strong> blood<br />
samples..<br />
- Suspecting <strong>the</strong> accused was<br />
purchasing fertilizer for<br />
narcotics purposes, police<br />
examined his garage.<br />
- Police made small holes in<br />
<strong>the</strong> doors, windows and ro<strong>of</strong><br />
vents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> garage. They<br />
observed plants growing<br />
under lights and <strong>the</strong>n<br />
obtained search warrants to<br />
enter <strong>the</strong> home.<br />
- The accused asked to speak<br />
to a lawyer but agreed to wait<br />
until his children were<br />
removed.<br />
- During this period <strong>the</strong><br />
accused initiated a<br />
conversation with police and<br />
made several incriminating<br />
statements.<br />
- Insider trading was revealed<br />
when <strong>the</strong> RCMP obtained<br />
search warrants based on<br />
information obtained through<br />
authorized intercepted private<br />
communications.<br />
- The phrase "reliable,<br />
confidential source" was used<br />
to obtain <strong>the</strong> warrants when,<br />
in fact, <strong>the</strong> source wasn’t<br />
reliable.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2);<br />
-Criminal Code;<br />
- Narcotic Control Act, ss.<br />
4(2), 6(1), 10(1) (a) [rep.<br />
and sub. 1985, c. 19, s.<br />
200(1)] -- now R.S.C.<br />
1985, c. N-1.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
178.16(1)(b), 762(1) (a),<br />
189(1)(b), 312, 423(1)(d),<br />
487(1)(b), and 830(1)(a).<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong> search tainted by <strong>the</strong> earlier<br />
warrantless searches and did it constituted an<br />
unreasonable search and seizure?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence obtained on <strong>the</strong><br />
search and <strong>the</strong> incriminating statements be<br />
excluded at trial?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Were <strong>the</strong> police deceptive in acquiring<br />
<strong>the</strong> warrant and thus violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) No warrant was required to search <strong>the</strong> garage.<br />
- Under s. 10 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Narcotic Control Act an <strong>of</strong>ficer may enter and search any place<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r than a dwelling without a warrant where he reasonably believes a narcotic is<br />
present whose presence would constitute an <strong>of</strong>fence.<br />
- (2) A garage is not a dwelling-house. The manner <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> surveillance was not<br />
unreasonable and property damage was minimal.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (one's expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy must give way to <strong>the</strong> government's<br />
interest in advancing its law enforcement goals; <strong>the</strong> perimeter search <strong>of</strong> external<br />
boundary <strong>of</strong> dwelling house was not unreasonable even though <strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
were trespassers).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects a person’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy and<br />
police need a warrant to conduct a search).<br />
- (1) The information given to <strong>the</strong> Justice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Peace was misleading: <strong>the</strong> normal<br />
interpretation <strong>of</strong> “reliable source” would be that <strong>the</strong> information had come from an<br />
informant, not a wiretap.<br />
- (2) Admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence would have brought <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into<br />
disrepute because it would condone police misconduct.<br />
46
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL<br />
<strong>Canada</strong> v. Norwood<br />
2001 CanLII 22155<br />
(F.C.A.)<br />
Strayer J.A.; Sexton<br />
and Sharlow JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
Ruby v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(Solicitor General)<br />
(C.A.)<br />
[2000] 3 F.C. 589<br />
Létourneau J.A.;<br />
Robertson, Sexton<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Affirmed SCC<br />
- A Revenue <strong>Canada</strong> auditor<br />
was conducting an audit in <strong>the</strong><br />
building <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> audited<br />
corporation.<br />
- The auditor entered <strong>the</strong><br />
private <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
company’s accountant (when<br />
<strong>the</strong> accountant was out <strong>of</strong><br />
town) to use <strong>the</strong> telephone.<br />
-The auditor saw a file for <strong>the</strong><br />
corporation, opens it, and<br />
photocopied notes made by<br />
<strong>the</strong> accountant in an interview<br />
with a client.<br />
- These facts were not<br />
disclosed to <strong>the</strong> accountant or<br />
<strong>the</strong> client.<br />
- Certain governmental<br />
organizations (<strong>the</strong> RCMP,<br />
CSIS and <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
External Affairs (DEA))<br />
refused access to (or in some<br />
cases refused to confirm or<br />
deny <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong>)<br />
personal information held in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir databases.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er s.8, s.24. - (1) Did taking and photocopying <strong>the</strong><br />
accountant’s notes constitute an unreasonable<br />
search and seizure in violation <strong>of</strong> s.8?<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er s.7 and 8;<br />
- Privacy Act, s.51;<br />
- Access to Information<br />
Act.<br />
• YES<br />
(2) What is <strong>the</strong> remedy under s.24?<br />
• Exclude <strong>the</strong> notes as evidence.<br />
- (1) Do <strong>the</strong> mandatory provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Privacy Act (s.51) with respect to in camera<br />
and ex parte hearings contravene ss. 7 and 8<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Even though <strong>the</strong> accountant’s notes recording personal information attract a<br />
low reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy, <strong>the</strong>re is never<strong>the</strong>less some expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy which protects against <strong>the</strong> secret taking <strong>of</strong> information without notice,<br />
request or consent.<br />
- Because <strong>the</strong> section <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Privacy Act in question is merely procedural, <strong>the</strong> liberty<br />
interest is not engaged.<br />
- In obiter, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Court</strong> noted that ss. 7 and 8 may be engaged by o<strong>the</strong>r sections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Act; a corollary to a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
access (if only to verify accuracy).<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
Gernhart v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(C.A.)<br />
[2000] 2 F.C. 292,<br />
Sexton J.A.; Rothstein<br />
and Noel JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
- In an appeal regarding an<br />
income tax assessment <strong>the</strong><br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> National Revenue<br />
is required transmit to <strong>the</strong> Tax<br />
<strong>Court</strong> copies <strong>of</strong> all returns,<br />
notices <strong>of</strong> assessment, notices<br />
<strong>of</strong> objections and notifications<br />
that were relevant to <strong>the</strong><br />
appeal. These <strong>the</strong>n became<br />
available to <strong>the</strong> public at large.<br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er s.8 and s.1.<br />
- (1) Does <strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> documents pursuant<br />
to <strong>the</strong> section constitute an unreasonable<br />
seizure?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) What is <strong>the</strong> appropriate remedy?<br />
• Strike down <strong>the</strong> section.<br />
- (1) A low reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy exists in income tax returns; however,<br />
this small degree would be shattered if tax records were revealed to public at large.<br />
Consequently, <strong>the</strong> section violates s.8 and is not saved under s.1.<br />
- Note that <strong>the</strong> section had not changed in many years and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Court</strong> took note <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
changing environment:<br />
• “Since photocopies could not be easily made until approximately twenty years<br />
ago, subsection 176(1) was simply a benign method to provide adjudicators<br />
with information about tax disputes that <strong>the</strong>y were due to hear.<br />
• In his factum, counsel for <strong>the</strong> Minister also conceded that "<strong>the</strong> impugned<br />
provision . . . has by reason <strong>of</strong> developments in <strong>the</strong> social, technological and<br />
47
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
legal field become a historical aberration."<br />
• He admitted "that <strong>the</strong>re is a troublesome appearance arising from <strong>the</strong><br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> subsection 176(1) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Income Tax Act" in that <strong>the</strong> Minister<br />
provides documents to <strong>the</strong> Tax <strong>Court</strong> in <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r party.<br />
• In oral argument, it was again conceded that subsection 176(1) did not serve any<br />
useful purpose. Never<strong>the</strong>less, it was argued, <strong>the</strong> mere fact that legislation does<br />
not keep pace with <strong>the</strong> times "does not make it violative <strong>of</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er values."<br />
(paras 37 and 38)<br />
Smith v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(Attorney General)<br />
2000 CanLII 14930<br />
(F.C.A.)<br />
Judgement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Court</strong>: Decary, Sexton<br />
and Evans.<br />
* Affirmed by SCC<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
Schreiber v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(Attorney General)<br />
(C.A.)<br />
[1997] 2 F.C. 176<br />
Linden J.A.; Henry<br />
J.A. (con); Stone J.A.<br />
(dis).<br />
* Reversed by SCC<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
Del Zotto v. <strong>Canada</strong><br />
(C.A.)<br />
[1997] 3 F.C. 40,<br />
MacGuigan J.A.;<br />
- The plaintiff left <strong>Canada</strong><br />
while on Employment<br />
Insurance in violation <strong>of</strong><br />
program requirements. At <strong>the</strong><br />
border on his return he filled<br />
out a form for <strong>Canada</strong> Customs<br />
(CCRA).<br />
- That information was shared<br />
with <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
Unemployment Insurance<br />
Comission.<br />
- Without judicial<br />
authorization, <strong>the</strong> Crown<br />
requested information from<br />
<strong>the</strong> Swiss government about<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused’s Swiss bank<br />
account.<br />
- Section 231.4 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Income<br />
Tax Act permits <strong>the</strong> Minister<br />
to authorize an Inquiry into<br />
anything relating to <strong>the</strong><br />
administration or enforcement<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Is <strong>the</strong>re a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy in customs declaration forms with<br />
respect to cross matching with unemployment<br />
records?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Must <strong>the</strong> Canadian standard for <strong>the</strong><br />
issuance <strong>of</strong> a search warrant be satisfied<br />
before <strong>the</strong> Minister <strong>of</strong> Justice and <strong>the</strong> Attorney<br />
General submit a request to search and seize<br />
banking records and documents in a foreign<br />
jurisdiction?<br />
- Income Tax Act, S.<br />
231.4;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.7 and s.8.<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) Does <strong>the</strong> section <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Income Tax Act<br />
that permits an Inquiry to be established<br />
infringe s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; protecting reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) “The nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> information, <strong>the</strong> relationship between <strong>the</strong> appellant and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
returning Canadian residents and Customs, <strong>the</strong> place and manner in which <strong>the</strong><br />
disclosure <strong>of</strong> E-311 information was made and <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence under<br />
investigation, that <strong>the</strong> appellant and o<strong>the</strong>r Canadian residents returning to <strong>Canada</strong> by<br />
air … cannot be said to have held a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in relation to<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir E-311 information disclosed to <strong>the</strong> Commission, which outweighs <strong>the</strong><br />
government's interest in enforcing <strong>the</strong> laws disentitling unemployment insurance<br />
claimants from receiving benefits while outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>. The disclosure <strong>of</strong> E-311<br />
information in this case is not in violation <strong>of</strong> section 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.” (para. 4)<br />
- (1) The respondent was <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> a Canadian criminal investigation by<br />
Canadian authorities and <strong>the</strong> information obtained could be used in a criminal<br />
prosecution in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />
• Although <strong>the</strong> bank accounts were not in <strong>Canada</strong> (and <strong>the</strong>refore subject to laws<br />
and authorities over which <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er would have no application), <strong>the</strong> privacy<br />
interest was jeopardized by <strong>the</strong> letter <strong>of</strong> request that was initiated in <strong>Canada</strong>.<br />
• Therefore prior authorization is necessary for a lawful search and seizure. S.8<br />
protects people not places and <strong>the</strong> right to be secure against unreasonable<br />
searches contemplates pre-authorization since privacy, once lost, cannot be<br />
restored.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; protects only reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy; protecting core biographical info).<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police acting in good faith when conducting search).<br />
- MacGuigan (Henry concurring): A subpoena that orders <strong>the</strong> appearance and<br />
production <strong>of</strong> documents violates a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy. There is a<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in documents held by o<strong>the</strong>rs. Concern that person<br />
who might be subject to criminal proceedings might be required to appear.<br />
- Strayer (dis): There is no basis for declaring <strong>the</strong> section invalid. Relative to a<br />
48
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Henry J.A. (con);<br />
Strayer J.A. (dis).<br />
* Reversed by SCC<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Act.<br />
- The Inquiry can lead to<br />
summoning and enforcing<br />
attendance <strong>of</strong> witnesses, and<br />
compelling <strong>the</strong>m to give<br />
evidence.<br />
- In this case, Noble would<br />
have been compelled to<br />
produce documents belonging<br />
to Del Zotto.<br />
- (2) What is <strong>the</strong> appropriate remedy?<br />
• Strike <strong>the</strong> section down.<br />
search, a subpoena does not result in a major privacy intrusion. There is a<br />
presumption that no expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy attaches to <strong>the</strong> documents and if <strong>the</strong>re it<br />
does and a violation <strong>of</strong> s.8 would occur, this can be raised with <strong>the</strong> hearing <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
and, if necessary, judicial review.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless search presumed to be unreasonable; s. 8 only protects<br />
a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy)<br />
MB COURT OF APPEAL<br />
R. v. Guiboche<br />
2004 MBCA 16<br />
Freedman J.A.; Kr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
and Monnin JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* Final Level (leave<br />
to appeal dismissed<br />
by SCC)<br />
- The accused was found and<br />
arrested in his fa<strong>the</strong>r’s house.<br />
-He was not living in his<br />
fa<strong>the</strong>r’s house.<br />
- At <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> arrest,<br />
police searched <strong>the</strong> room in<br />
which <strong>the</strong> accused was found.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure in <strong>the</strong> room<br />
violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The accused had no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> room because it<br />
was not his dwelling place (which would be subject to a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy).<br />
- Ref to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances test).<br />
Property – Home<br />
(perimeter search)<br />
R. v. Campbell<br />
2003 MBCA 76<br />
Scott J.A.; Hamilton<br />
and Freedman JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
- In <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> an<br />
investigation, <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
car was stopped and <strong>the</strong><br />
accused was asked to provide<br />
his driver’s licence.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8;<br />
-Highway Traffic Act.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> requirement to produce a driver’s<br />
license violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Requiring <strong>the</strong> production <strong>of</strong> a driver’s license for inspection (under <strong>the</strong><br />
Highway Traffic Act) is not a search within <strong>the</strong> meaning <strong>of</strong> s.8 because it does not<br />
violate a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (contextual approach).<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (evidence obtained through <strong>Chart</strong>er breach not admissible).<br />
Vehicle Search<br />
R. v. Lamirande<br />
2002 MBCA 41<br />
Scott J.A.; Philip and<br />
Monnin JJ.A. (con).<br />
- While being transfered from<br />
one custodial facility to<br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> accused was<br />
searched and papers and<br />
documents were seized.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure <strong>of</strong> documents<br />
and papers violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The accused had no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong><br />
admission to <strong>the</strong> custodial facility.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (contextual approach; dignity, autonomy and integrity <strong>of</strong> individual).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless search presumed to be unreasonable).<br />
49
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
• Final Level<br />
(Leave to appeal<br />
dismissed by<br />
SCC)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. Z. (S. M.)<br />
1998 MBCA 18<br />
Philip J.A.; Kr<strong>of</strong>t and<br />
Lyon JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
-A Vice Principal searched a<br />
high school student’s locker<br />
and seized drugs.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) A student has a significantly diminished reasonable expectation in <strong>the</strong> school<br />
environment, particularly with respect to a locker that has been provided by <strong>the</strong><br />
school, is shared with ano<strong>the</strong>r student and has <strong>the</strong> combination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lock recorded<br />
by <strong>the</strong> school’s administration (which is at <strong>the</strong> lower end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy scale in <strong>the</strong> school). Additionally, <strong>the</strong> Vice Principal had valid reasons for<br />
wanting to search <strong>the</strong> locker.<br />
Property search –<br />
School Locker<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s.8).<br />
NB COURT OF APPEAL<br />
Mitchell v. R.<br />
2005 NBCA 104<br />
Robertson J.A.;<br />
Deschênes J.A. (con);<br />
Richard J.A. (dis).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Vehicle Search<br />
- Police searched <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s car and seized drugs<br />
found hidden behind <strong>the</strong> gas<br />
cap.<br />
- The car was seized and<br />
detained after <strong>the</strong> accused was<br />
arrested for obstruction <strong>of</strong><br />
justice.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) A search that is incidental to an arrest can only be made with respect to <strong>the</strong><br />
purpose for <strong>the</strong> arrest.<br />
- (2) The accused must demonstrate on <strong>the</strong> balance <strong>of</strong> probabilities that admitting <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence would bring to <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute.<br />
• Factors (following Collins): “(1) determine whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence would impact on <strong>the</strong> fairness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial; (2) assess <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> breach; and (3) determine whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> justice system’s repute would be<br />
served by <strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence ra<strong>the</strong>r than its exclusion.” (para. 20).<br />
• Here evidence not conscripted, <strong>the</strong>refore trial fairness not affected.<br />
• Factors to consider when considering seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> breach: “(1) was <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er breach serious or <strong>of</strong> a technical nature?; (2) did it occur in<br />
circumstances <strong>of</strong> urgency or necessity?; (3) was <strong>the</strong> search obtrusive in nature?;<br />
(4) did <strong>the</strong> accused have a heightened expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong><br />
area searched?; (5) was <strong>the</strong> warrantless search conducted in circumstances<br />
where <strong>the</strong> police had reasonable and probable grounds; (6) could <strong>the</strong> evidence<br />
have been obtained by o<strong>the</strong>r investigatory techniques that did not breach <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?; and (7) did <strong>the</strong> police act in good faith?” (para. 21)<br />
-While <strong>the</strong>re is a lesser expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in a car than in a dwelling or an<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice, <strong>the</strong>re was no pressing need to search <strong>the</strong> car without a warrant and <strong>the</strong> car<br />
was in <strong>the</strong> custody and control <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> police.<br />
50
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
-With regard to good faith, <strong>the</strong> police claimed to have had an honest and reasonable<br />
belief that <strong>the</strong> search was lawful.<br />
- As to whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> misunderstanding was reasonable, because <strong>the</strong> law is settled and<br />
has been on <strong>the</strong> books for 8 years, ignorance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> law cannot be accepted.<br />
- Following “Justice Sopinka in R. v. Kokesch, ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> police knew or ought to<br />
have known <strong>the</strong> law with respect to a vehicle search that is incidental to an arrest.<br />
Clearly <strong>the</strong> police ought to have known.” (para. 31)<br />
- Consequently <strong>the</strong> police did not act in good faith and evidence is generally<br />
excluded in such circumstances. An additional factor is to instil in law enforcement<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers and <strong>the</strong>ir advisors <strong>the</strong> need to be vigilant regarding <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir lawful<br />
authority. (There appeared to be a concern that admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence negatively<br />
influence police conduct in <strong>the</strong> future). <strong>On</strong> balance, <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice<br />
would be brought into disrepute if <strong>the</strong> evidence were admitted.<br />
R. v. Kelly<br />
1999 CanLII 13120<br />
(NB C.A.)<br />
Drapeau J.A.;<br />
Turnbull and Larlee<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
- The police conducted an<br />
unwarranted aerial search by<br />
helicopter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
garden followed by an<br />
unwarranted search on <strong>the</strong><br />
ground. They <strong>the</strong>n seized<br />
uprooted marijuana plants.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> searches and seizure violate s.8<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information).<br />
- Ref to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search).<br />
- (1) The open space adjoining <strong>the</strong> house (<strong>the</strong> accused’s garden) was subject to a<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy as a ‘curtilage’ <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dwelling (and not part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
‘open fields’ doctrine).<br />
• “As a rule, lawful occupants have an expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in all open spaces<br />
within <strong>the</strong>ir residential lots that is qualitatively sufficent to invest <strong>the</strong>m with s.8<br />
protection against unlawful aerial as well as terrestrial searches.” (para. 50).<br />
• The subsequent on-<strong>the</strong>-ground search was a direct result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> arial search. The<br />
unlawfulness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first search taints <strong>the</strong> second and makes it unreasonable.<br />
Surveillance –<br />
aerial search<br />
- (2) The evidence was non-conscriptive and its admission would not render <strong>the</strong> trial<br />
unfair.<br />
• The factors in favour <strong>of</strong> exclusion (importance <strong>of</strong> rights and manner <strong>of</strong><br />
intrusion) are mitigated by <strong>the</strong> fact that: (a) <strong>the</strong> accused was not <strong>the</strong>re at time <strong>of</strong><br />
search; (b) <strong>the</strong> search did not involve <strong>the</strong> residence as such; (c) <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
subsequently consented to a search; (d) <strong>the</strong> evidence was real and without it<br />
<strong>the</strong>re would be no conviction; and (e) <strong>the</strong> accused is a peace <strong>of</strong>ficer (prison<br />
guard).<br />
• The searches were not a product <strong>of</strong> deliberate and reckless disregard <strong>of</strong> rights.<br />
R. v. Leaver<br />
1998 CanLII 12205<br />
- Police recorded a<br />
conversation between <strong>the</strong><br />
accused and a police<br />
- Criminal Code, s.183;<br />
-<strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8.<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong> recorded conversation<br />
admissible?<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> a perimeter search).<br />
- (1) The accused knew he was speaking with a police negotiator and in <strong>the</strong>se<br />
circumstances could not have any reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> sense<br />
that it was a private conversation under s. 183 <strong>of</strong> Criminal Code.<br />
51
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
(NB C.A.)<br />
Ryan J.A.; Turnbull<br />
and Larlee JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
negotiator in <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> a<br />
hostage taking.<br />
• YES<br />
Surveillance -<br />
wiretap<br />
R. v. Legere<br />
1994 CanLII 3851 (NB<br />
C.A.)<br />
Ayles J.A.; Angers<br />
and Hoyt JJ.A. (con).<br />
* Final Level<br />
(application for<br />
reconsideration<br />
dismissed by SCC)<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
person/<strong>Identity</strong> –<br />
DNA<br />
- Tissue paper used by <strong>the</strong><br />
accused while at <strong>the</strong> police<br />
station was discarded by <strong>the</strong><br />
accused in a wastepaper<br />
basket and subsequently<br />
retrieved and sent for DNA<br />
analysis.<br />
- Head and pubic hair samples<br />
were taken from <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
without consent.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> seizure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tissue paper<br />
unlawful?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Was <strong>the</strong> seizure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> head and pubic<br />
hair unlawful?<br />
• YES<br />
- (3) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The accused no longer had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in materials he<br />
had abandoned; <strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong> material was “ga<strong>the</strong>red”, not “seized.”<br />
- (2) The forceable taking <strong>of</strong> ‘parts’ <strong>of</strong> a person is contrary to s.8.<br />
- (3) Factors in deciding whe<strong>the</strong>r or not to exclude evidence include:<br />
• What kind <strong>of</strong> evidence was obtained? This was real evidence that existed<br />
irrespective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er violation. (As distinguished from conscripted<br />
evidence – e.g. self-incrimination conscripted through confession – which is<br />
contrary to <strong>the</strong> right against self-incrimination).<br />
• What <strong>Chart</strong>er right was infringed? No resistance <strong>of</strong>fered and done with minimal<br />
intrusion.<br />
• Was <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er violation serious or merely <strong>of</strong> a technical nature? The violation<br />
was not technical. However, in view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> need to obtain information for <strong>the</strong><br />
investigation, <strong>the</strong> violation was minimal.<br />
• Was <strong>the</strong> violation deliberate and flagrant or was in committed in good faith?<br />
The police acted in good faith, following an <strong>On</strong>tario <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Appeal case that<br />
held this was not unlawful (even though <strong>the</strong>re was a N.B. <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Appeal<br />
decision to <strong>the</strong> contrary).<br />
• Did <strong>the</strong> violation occur in situation <strong>of</strong> urgency or necessity? Police needed <strong>the</strong><br />
information to conduct DNA analysis and <strong>the</strong>re was no o<strong>the</strong>r way to proceed<br />
without getting <strong>the</strong> accused’s consent.<br />
• Were o<strong>the</strong>r investigative techniques available? A sample <strong>of</strong> blood or hair is<br />
needed to conduct DNA analysis.<br />
• Would <strong>the</strong> evidence have been obtained in any event? No.<br />
• Is <strong>the</strong> accusation serious? <strong>On</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most serious (murder).<br />
• Is <strong>the</strong> evidence essential to substantiate <strong>the</strong> charge? Seized hair samples were<br />
important, if not essential, to substantiate <strong>the</strong> charge.<br />
• Are o<strong>the</strong>r remedies available? In this case, no.<br />
- (4) Admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence would not bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into<br />
52
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
disrepute. Police were not engaged in unacceptable conduct – <strong>the</strong>y had satisfied<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves that <strong>the</strong>y were engaged in a lawful seizure incidental to an arrest.<br />
- Ref. to Collins and Dyment<br />
NS COURT OF APPEAL<br />
R. v. LeClaire<br />
2005 NSCA 165<br />
Roscoe J.A.;<br />
Cromwell and<br />
Freeman JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level<br />
Property - Home<br />
(perimeter search)<br />
- Police see a door leading<br />
from <strong>the</strong> accused’s garage to<br />
his living area.<br />
-They enter <strong>the</strong> open garage<br />
and see a man through <strong>the</strong><br />
door window.<br />
- Police knock on <strong>the</strong> door,<br />
advise <strong>the</strong> accused that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
are investigating an impaired<br />
driving complaint and ask if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y may enter house.<br />
- They are invited in.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Did entering through <strong>the</strong> garage door<br />
violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- There is an implied license for members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> public and police to approach <strong>the</strong><br />
door <strong>of</strong> a residence and knock.<br />
- In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> police, <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> approach will be determinative as to<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r conduct falls within <strong>the</strong> ‘implied invitation to knock.’ If police simply<br />
wish to communicate or are conducting an investigation <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y’re within <strong>the</strong><br />
implied license. If, however, police approach to ga<strong>the</strong>r evidence or determine<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r suspected evidence becomes apparent when <strong>the</strong> door is opened <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y’re<br />
not within <strong>the</strong> implied invitation to knock. (SCC Evans)<br />
- The distinction is based on <strong>the</strong> fact that one can refuse to answer questions -<br />
nothing is unwittingly disclosed.<br />
- Evans has been applied in several similar cases concerning entering onto <strong>the</strong><br />
property in connection with drunk driving suspicions.<br />
- A direct route to <strong>the</strong> door is required. Police may not take a trespassory detour to<br />
use <strong>the</strong>ir senses (sight/smell) to ga<strong>the</strong>r evidence.<br />
- When police first entered <strong>the</strong> home <strong>the</strong>y engaged <strong>the</strong> accused in ‘open-ended’<br />
conversation. They had no grounds for arrest until <strong>the</strong>y observed <strong>the</strong> condition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused and he acknowledged that he had been driving.<br />
- The implied invitation to knock applies only to places where one can conveniently<br />
knock.<br />
- Ref. to Evans<br />
R. v. Wood<br />
2001 NSCA 38<br />
Roscoe J.A.;<br />
Hallett and Cromwell<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
- A barrister provided<br />
financial records to <strong>the</strong> Law<br />
Society as part <strong>of</strong> a regulatory<br />
process.<br />
-The records were<br />
subsequently seized under a<br />
warrant and used against <strong>the</strong><br />
barrister at trial.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7 and 8. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> accused’s reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy (per ss. 7 and 8)<br />
violated?<br />
• NO<br />
(2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The accused was required, as a condition <strong>of</strong> practising law, to provide<br />
documents to <strong>the</strong> Law Society upon request. These records were accessed under a<br />
lawful warrant. There is little, if any, reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in business<br />
records required to be maintained as a condition <strong>of</strong> practising law.<br />
- (2) The <strong>Court</strong> also found that if <strong>the</strong>re were a breach <strong>of</strong> s.8 <strong>the</strong> records would not be<br />
excluded under s.24(2).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8).<br />
53
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Wilcox<br />
2001 NSCA 45<br />
Cromwell J.A.; Flinn<br />
and Oland JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
Canadian<br />
Broadcasting<br />
Corporation v.<br />
Batiot<br />
1997 CanLII 9853 (NS<br />
C.A.)<br />
Bateman J.A.; Roscoe<br />
and Freeman JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* Final level (leave to<br />
appeal dismissed by<br />
SCC)<br />
- The accused worked at a<br />
fishery and sold more than his<br />
quota <strong>of</strong> snowcrab, contrary to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Fisheries Act.<br />
- The fishery’s books were<br />
seized without warrant by <strong>the</strong><br />
Crown.<br />
- The CBC objects to<br />
subpoenas which order<br />
journalists to give evidence at<br />
a preliminary enquiry and to<br />
produce notes, records <strong>of</strong><br />
communications, video and<br />
audio tapes made during <strong>the</strong><br />
development <strong>of</strong> a program for<br />
<strong>the</strong> 5 th Estate.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 11(c),<br />
11(d), 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 830,<br />
830(1), 830(1)(a),<br />
830(1)(b), 830(1) (c), 834,<br />
834(1), 834(1)(b);<br />
- Fisheries Act, R.S.C.<br />
1985, c. F-14, s. 49,<br />
49(1), 49.1(2), 49.1(2).<br />
- (1) Did seizing <strong>the</strong> books without a warrant<br />
violate s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.7 and s.8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> records enjoy a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy under s.7 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The seizure was properly conducted under <strong>the</strong> Fisheries Act and was <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
not unreasonable.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy; core biographical information).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; s. 8 only protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy).<br />
- (1) The records were made during <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> a program which was<br />
broadcast. Nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> journalists not <strong>the</strong> complainants (who were <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
records) enjoyed a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong>se records. The records<br />
and communications did not occur in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> a confidential relationship.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (contextual approach; core biographical information).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (balancing state interest and individual privacy).<br />
Surveillance -<br />
wiretap<br />
R. v. Spidell<br />
1996 CanLII 5277 (NS<br />
C.A.)<br />
Roscoe J.A.; Clarke<br />
and Mat<strong>the</strong>ws JJ.A.<br />
(con) .<br />
* Final Level (leave<br />
to appeal dismissed<br />
by SCC)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. Fitt<br />
[1995] N.S.J. No. 83<br />
- A physician contacted police<br />
to report that <strong>the</strong> accused had<br />
told him that he had been<br />
involved in a traffic accident,<br />
had been drinking and that this<br />
occurred within <strong>the</strong> past hour.<br />
- Police went to <strong>the</strong> hospital<br />
and demanded that <strong>the</strong><br />
accused provide a blood<br />
sample.<br />
-The accused refused and was<br />
charged with refusal.<br />
- Video gambling machines<br />
were kept in a small taxi<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong>re a violation <strong>of</strong> s.8?<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> police violate <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy?<br />
- (1) Although <strong>the</strong> physician may have breached his duty <strong>of</strong> confidentiality to <strong>the</strong><br />
patient:<br />
• it was not demonstrated that <strong>the</strong>re was a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in<br />
<strong>the</strong> information voluntarily provided by <strong>the</strong> doctor to <strong>the</strong> police. The physician<br />
was not acting at <strong>the</strong> request <strong>of</strong>, or under <strong>the</strong> direction <strong>of</strong>, <strong>the</strong> police;<br />
• information provided to <strong>the</strong> police was not <strong>of</strong> a private, intimate nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
sort protected by s.8;<br />
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy; core biographical information).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; protection <strong>of</strong> people and not places).<br />
- (1) The search was not unreasonable as <strong>the</strong>re was no expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy from<br />
intrusion by <strong>the</strong> police.<br />
54
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Hallett J.A.; Freeman<br />
and Pugsley JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* affirmed SCC<br />
Property – Home<br />
(Perimeter search)<br />
(warrantless)<br />
R. v. MacLennan<br />
1995 CanLII 4340 (NS<br />
C.A.)<br />
Freeman J.A.; Roscoe<br />
and Chipman JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* final level<br />
Vehicle Search<br />
R. v. Kouyas<br />
1994 CanLII 3962 (NS<br />
C.A.)<br />
Hallett J.A.; Chipman<br />
and Freeman JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* affirmed SCC<br />
Property Search –<br />
Games Room<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice.<br />
- Several machines were<br />
visible from <strong>the</strong> customer<br />
waiting area.<br />
- Police saw <strong>the</strong>m and thought<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were illegal.<br />
- They did not have a warrant<br />
to be on <strong>the</strong> property.<br />
- A car was stopped because a<br />
passenger was not wearing a<br />
seat belt.<br />
- Police smelled alcohol.<br />
- The driver was accompanied<br />
to <strong>the</strong> police cruiser and, once<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer confirmed <strong>the</strong><br />
accused smelled <strong>of</strong> alcohol,<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused was asked to take<br />
a breathalyser test.<br />
- Police entered a public<br />
games room while<br />
investigating a complaint<br />
about rowdy youths who were<br />
drinking/taking drugs adjacent<br />
to <strong>the</strong> games room.<br />
- While in <strong>the</strong> games room<br />
police saw and seized illegal<br />
gambling machines.<br />
202(1)(b).<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8 and 9. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> accused’s reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy violated?<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> seizure contrary to s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
• <strong>the</strong> business premises were open to <strong>the</strong> public and <strong>the</strong> illegal machines were in<br />
plain view (see R v. Chang). Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong>re was evidence that <strong>the</strong> taxi stand<br />
was open to <strong>the</strong> public and <strong>the</strong> public could play <strong>the</strong> games.<br />
- (2) Since <strong>the</strong>re was no violation <strong>of</strong> s.8, s. 24(2) wasn’t discussed.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- Ref. to Collins<br />
- (1) The indicia <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused’s impairment were passive emanations <strong>of</strong> odour,<br />
speech and movement. In <strong>the</strong>se circumstances, <strong>the</strong>re was no improper intervention<br />
by <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer that violated a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
- The accused knew he could be asked to produce his documents if he drove his<br />
vehicle on a highway, and that in doing so he might be requested to approach a<br />
police cruiser. Knowing that, he voluntarily consumed <strong>the</strong> alcohol and <strong>the</strong>n chose to<br />
drive on a highway. Constables Byrne and Merrell protected Mr. MacLellan, his<br />
passenger through <strong>the</strong>ir alert police work.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 only protects a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) There is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in public areas <strong>of</strong> games rooms<br />
during business hours.<br />
- There is a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with regard to non-public areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
business. Although not necessary (given <strong>the</strong> reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy<br />
finding), <strong>the</strong> <strong>Court</strong> considered <strong>the</strong> plain view doctrine, which permits warrantless<br />
searches <strong>of</strong> private possessions if three conditions are met:<br />
1. police must make a lawful intrusion or properly be in a position to view;<br />
2. incriminating evidence must be discovered inadvertently (as opposed to<br />
being known in advance and using <strong>the</strong> plain view doctrine as pretext); and<br />
3. it must be immediately apparent “that <strong>the</strong> items <strong>the</strong>y observe may be<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> a crime, contraband, or o<strong>the</strong>rwise subject to seizure.”<br />
Facts <strong>of</strong> this case bring <strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficer’s activity within <strong>the</strong> plain view doctrine.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (whe<strong>the</strong>r a search is reasonable or not).<br />
R. v. Patriquen<br />
[1994] N.S.J. No. 573<br />
Roscoe, J.A.;<br />
Chipman, J.A. (con);<br />
and Pugsley, J.A.<br />
- Acting on a tip, <strong>the</strong> police<br />
saw 100 marijuana plants.<br />
-Without a warrant, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
visited <strong>the</strong> property a second<br />
time to take photographs.<br />
- They returned a third time to<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Narcotic Control Act, ss.<br />
4(2), 6(2), 10.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> accused have a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> land<br />
on which <strong>the</strong>y were growing marijuana (and<br />
were <strong>the</strong>ir s.8 rights <strong>the</strong>refore violated?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The land was secluded and surrounded by woods in a rural area. The<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy on privately-held woodlands is not substantially different<br />
than that on Crown land (see Boersma).<br />
- This is because woodlands in rural areas are in some respects subject to inspections<br />
by members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> public at large.<br />
- Therefore <strong>the</strong> accused had no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy and <strong>the</strong>re was no s.<br />
55
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
(dis).<br />
* Affirmed SCC<br />
Home search –<br />
Perimeter search<br />
find <strong>the</strong> respondents watering<br />
<strong>the</strong> crop.<br />
-Police <strong>the</strong>n arrested <strong>the</strong><br />
respondents and seized <strong>the</strong><br />
marijuana plants.<br />
-There was never any warrant<br />
to enter onto <strong>the</strong> land.<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
8 breach.<br />
- (2) It was necessary to enter <strong>the</strong> lands to corroborate <strong>the</strong> information received and,<br />
having done that, police <strong>the</strong>n had reasonable and probable grounds to obtain a<br />
warrant. Police did not do so because <strong>the</strong>y did not understand that it was required<br />
and <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> bad faith. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> evidence should be admitted.<br />
- The <strong>Court</strong> adopted an American approach to <strong>the</strong> privacy expectations in<br />
information kept by third parties and found that <strong>the</strong>re is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy in computer records <strong>of</strong> electricity consumption, since <strong>the</strong> records did not<br />
contain personal and confidential information. <strong>On</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> factors taken into account<br />
in coming to this conclusion was that <strong>the</strong> records <strong>of</strong> energy consumption were<br />
"subject to inspection by <strong>the</strong> public at large."<br />
R. v. Brogan<br />
1993 CanLII 3237 (NS<br />
C.A.)<br />
- Records <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
hydro consumption were<br />
obtained under warrant.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong>re a violation <strong>of</strong> s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information).<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police must act in good faith).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8; protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) There is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in hydro records.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (facts compared; core biographical information).<br />
Pugsley J.A.; Clarke<br />
and Freeman JJ.A<br />
(con).<br />
* Final level<br />
Property - Home<br />
(hydro records)<br />
ON COURT OF APPEAL<br />
R. v. D'Silva<br />
[2006] Carswell<strong>On</strong>t<br />
154<br />
Doherty, Sharpe and<br />
Juriansz JJ.A.<br />
* final level<br />
- The police conducted a<br />
warrantless search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused and found stolen<br />
goods that had been given to<br />
him as collateral for a debt.<br />
- He was charged with<br />
possession <strong>of</strong> stolen goods.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Was <strong>the</strong>re a violation <strong>of</strong> s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) There is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with regard to <strong>the</strong> information<br />
ga<strong>the</strong>red during <strong>the</strong> initial warrantless search. Although <strong>the</strong>re was a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy regarding an ID number from inside a compartment <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> jet skis, this was not relied on to obtain <strong>the</strong> search warrant, and as such <strong>the</strong><br />
warrantless search did not intrude on <strong>the</strong> accused’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy.<br />
Property Search –<br />
Home<br />
56
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. A. M.<br />
[2006] Carswell<strong>On</strong>t<br />
2579<br />
Armstrong J.A.;<br />
Goudge and Blair<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level<br />
Surveillance - Sniffer<br />
Dog<br />
- Police used a “sniffer” dog<br />
to search a high school<br />
student’s backback on school<br />
property. The principal and<br />
staff were unaware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
search.<br />
- Youth Criminal Justice<br />
Act;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded<br />
pursuant to s.24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The <strong>Court</strong> refered to Hunter v. Southam: a warrantless search is prima facie<br />
unreasonable.<br />
- The dog was found to be a physical extension <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> handler (<strong>the</strong>y were<br />
directly/immediately connected).<br />
- The <strong>Court</strong> also refered to Tessling and does not conclude that a dog sniff is not a<br />
search. The use <strong>of</strong> a sniffer dog is distinguished from <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> FLIR imaging).<br />
- A student’s backpack should be afforded <strong>the</strong> same respect as an adult’s briefcase<br />
and <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>the</strong>refore a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with regard to <strong>the</strong> contents<br />
(see R. v. Mohamed).<br />
- The <strong>Court</strong> affirmed <strong>the</strong> trial judge’s decision (Collins test).<br />
- (2) This constituted a serious breach. “[T]his was a warrantless, random search<br />
with <strong>the</strong> entire school body held in detention. It was not authorized by ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />
criminal law or <strong>the</strong> Education Act and subsidiary school policies. The breach was<br />
serious. As <strong>the</strong> trial judge said: To admit <strong>the</strong> evidence is effectively to strip A.M.<br />
and any o<strong>the</strong>r student in a similar situation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> right to be free from unreasonable<br />
search and seizure.”<br />
R. v. Clarke<br />
[2005] Carswell<strong>On</strong>t<br />
1806<br />
Sharpe J.A.; Simmons<br />
and Laforme JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
*final level – SCC<br />
refused leave to<br />
appeal<br />
- Police followed a drunk<br />
driving suspect into <strong>the</strong><br />
private underground parking<br />
lot <strong>of</strong> his apartment building.<br />
-They <strong>the</strong>n conducted a<br />
search based on <strong>the</strong> smell <strong>of</strong><br />
alcohol on <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
breath.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> breathalyser evidence be<br />
excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
.<br />
- (1) If police are entitled to stop a suspect’s vehicle on <strong>the</strong> street, <strong>the</strong>y are entitled to<br />
pursue <strong>the</strong> suspect into his garage. <strong>On</strong>e does not have <strong>the</strong> same reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in one’s parking garage as in one’s dwelling.<br />
- This reverses <strong>the</strong> finding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lower court with regard to both <strong>the</strong> s.8 violation<br />
and exclusion.<br />
- (2) The breathalyser evidence is admissible.<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. Byfield<br />
[2005] CanLII 1486<br />
(ON C.A.)<br />
Rosenberg J.A.;<br />
Weiler J.A. and Pardu<br />
J. (con).<br />
*final level<br />
- Police observed <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
letting a prostitute into his<br />
vehicle.<br />
- They <strong>the</strong>n searched him and<br />
found drugs.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8, 9, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The search went beyond what was required to mitigate <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer’s safety<br />
concerns.<br />
- Iindividuals have a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> contents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
pockets.<br />
- (2) The <strong>Court</strong> reverses <strong>the</strong> trial judge’s decision (errors: trial judge lacked benefit<br />
<strong>of</strong> SCC decision in Mann with regard to reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in<br />
pockets), although it found that <strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> evidence would not affect <strong>the</strong><br />
fairness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial.<br />
57
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> Person –<br />
Body<br />
R. v. Crompton<br />
Co./CIE<br />
[2005] Carswell<strong>On</strong>t<br />
5082<br />
Gillese J.A.; Labrosse<br />
and Sharpe JJ.A. (con).<br />
*final level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. Hudson<br />
[2005] Carswell<strong>On</strong>t<br />
7378<br />
LaForme J.A.; Borins<br />
and Juriansz JJ..A.<br />
(con).<br />
*final level<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> Person –<br />
Body<br />
United States <strong>of</strong><br />
America v.<br />
McAmmond<br />
[2005] CanLII 20 (ON<br />
C.A.)<br />
Blair J.A.; Laskin and<br />
Feldman JJ.A. (con).<br />
* no history<br />
- The Environmental<br />
Protection Act (EPA)<br />
provides provincial <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
with powers to require certain<br />
records be provided.<br />
-This case concerned<br />
communications regarding a<br />
pollution spill (400 litres <strong>of</strong><br />
cooling tower water were<br />
accidentally discharged into a<br />
creek. A report was<br />
subsequently released stating<br />
“No adverse effects are<br />
anticipated.”)<br />
- The chemical manufacturer<br />
refused to provide <strong>the</strong><br />
requested records.<br />
- The respondent was<br />
crossing <strong>the</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>-U.S.<br />
border and was asked to<br />
empty his pockets, which he<br />
did.<br />
-Officials found five<br />
counterfeit $50 bills.<br />
- Police found <strong>the</strong> appellant,<br />
who was involved in a<br />
fraudulent telemarketing<br />
scheme, based on wiretapped<br />
conversations between o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
parties.<br />
- Environmental Protection<br />
Act, s. 92, 156, 184.<br />
- Customs Act, s.98;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>ers, ss. 7, 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2).<br />
- Extradition Act, s. 29(1);<br />
- Mutual Legal Assistance<br />
in Criminal Matters Act, s.<br />
17, 18, 20;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 24(1) and (2).<br />
- Appeal dismissed. No discussion <strong>of</strong> ss. 8 or<br />
24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO (no discussion <strong>of</strong> s.24(2))<br />
- Appeal <strong>of</strong> order for surrender and<br />
application for judicial review <strong>of</strong> decision to<br />
surrender are dismissed.<br />
- No discussion <strong>of</strong> s.8 or s.24(2).<br />
- In deciding one must consider <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> breach and <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong><br />
exclusion (Collins).<br />
- S. 156(3) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EPA requires that a record be made in a manner that does not<br />
intercept any private communications, in accord with reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy.<br />
- s. 156(2) gives provincial <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>the</strong> power to compel documents/data during a<br />
physical inspection only.<br />
- (1) The respondent was familiar with customs inspections.<br />
- A pocket search is a “non-invasive routine screening procedure” (not strip/skin<br />
search) and no <strong>Chart</strong>er rights breached.<br />
- There is a different standard for reasonable searches at <strong>the</strong> border (see Simmons).<br />
-The <strong>Court</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore overturned <strong>the</strong> trial judge, who had ruled <strong>the</strong> pocket search a s.<br />
8 violation and excluded <strong>the</strong> evidence. The appeal was allowed and a new trial<br />
ordered.<br />
- Ref. to Mann (different standard <strong>of</strong> privacy than for <strong>the</strong> general public).<br />
- (1) There is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in conversations o<strong>the</strong>r people<br />
have about you.<br />
58
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Surveillance –<br />
Wiretap (3 rd party)<br />
R. v. A.K.1<br />
[2005] CanLII 11389<br />
(ON C.A.)<br />
Moldaver, Gillese,<br />
Juriansz JJ.A.<br />
* no history<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. O'Sullivan<br />
[2005] Carswell<strong>On</strong>t<br />
2477<br />
Weiler, Simmons,<br />
Gillese JJ.A.<br />
* no history<br />
Surveillance –<br />
Wiretap<br />
- Charges <strong>of</strong> first degree<br />
murder were stayed because<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused had not been<br />
tried within a reasonable<br />
period <strong>of</strong> time, as required by<br />
s.11(b) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
-The Crown requested <strong>the</strong><br />
production <strong>of</strong> 17 autopsy files<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Coroner’s Office.<br />
- It was argued that third<br />
party privacy interests ought<br />
to be considered.<br />
- Police searched an<br />
apartment frequented, but not<br />
owned by, <strong>the</strong> appellant.<br />
-The appellant had invited<br />
police in.<br />
- Privacy Act, s. 2(1). - The trial judge was correct in finding that<br />
<strong>the</strong> respondents’ right to be tried within a<br />
reasonable time had been breached. Appeal<br />
dismissed.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er (referred to<br />
generally).<br />
- NO discussion <strong>of</strong> s.8 or s.24(2).<br />
- Crown possession/control (<strong>of</strong> records) is not to be equated with a violation <strong>of</strong><br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy (see R. v. Mills).<br />
- NO direct discussion <strong>of</strong> s.8 or s.24(2) - (1) The appellant had no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> apartment, even<br />
though he sometimes stays overnight.<br />
- The fact that <strong>the</strong> police were invited in negates a claim based on reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
R. v. Campanella<br />
[2005] 196 O.A.C. 188<br />
Rosenberg J.A.;<br />
Simmons and Lang<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* no history<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> Person –<br />
Body<br />
- The accused’s purse was<br />
searched at a security<br />
screening point at <strong>the</strong><br />
entrance to a provincial<br />
courthouse.<br />
- Signs at <strong>the</strong> public entrances<br />
inform that visitors will be<br />
searched and warn <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
ramifications <strong>of</strong> possessing<br />
illegal articles.<br />
-The accused had been<br />
through <strong>the</strong> screening process<br />
on previous occasions.<br />
- The purse was voluntarily<br />
submitted for a manual<br />
- Controlled Drugs and<br />
Substances Act, s. 4(1);<br />
- Public Works Protection<br />
Act, s. 3(b);<br />
- Police Services Act, s.<br />
137;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO (although <strong>the</strong>re was no ruling on<br />
s.24(2), <strong>the</strong>re was a discussion <strong>of</strong><br />
exclusion generally, favouring admitting<br />
<strong>the</strong> evidence).<br />
- (1) When entering prominent public buildings <strong>the</strong>re is a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
being searched and <strong>the</strong> appellant was familiar with procedure.<br />
- There was no evidence that <strong>the</strong> search was conducted in an unreasonable manner,<br />
or for a purpose unrelated to courthouse security.<br />
- (2) In balancing <strong>the</strong> interests, note that notice was given on a sign at entrance<br />
which said that one can refuse to be searched and leave. Alternately, one can transfer<br />
non-metallic objects from searchable hand-baggage to a pocket that will not be<br />
searched.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter v Southam (“reasonableness” to assess constitutionality).<br />
59
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Blais<br />
[2004] 181 O.A.C. 81<br />
Rosenberg J.A.;<br />
Weiler and Borins<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> Person –<br />
Property<br />
R. v. Mohamad<br />
[2004] 181 O.A.C. 201<br />
Cronk J.A; Laskin<br />
and Moldaver JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* final level<br />
Property – Vehicle<br />
(Personal Property<br />
inside)<br />
R. v. Major<br />
[2004] 188 O.A.C. 159<br />
Rosenberg J.A.;<br />
Laskin and Aitkin<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level - SCC<br />
leave to appeal<br />
dismissed<br />
search because it would have<br />
set <strong>of</strong>f <strong>the</strong> metal detector.<br />
- A small quantity <strong>of</strong><br />
marijuana was found and <strong>the</strong><br />
accused was arrested.<br />
- Following arrest and<br />
incarceration, Blais’ personal<br />
belongings were seized.<br />
- The belongings were<br />
searched twice by detectives.<br />
- A key that was among <strong>the</strong><br />
possessions was later seized<br />
under warrant.<br />
- A suspicious vehicle at<br />
customs led to <strong>the</strong> search <strong>of</strong><br />
ano<strong>the</strong>r vehicle.<br />
-The o<strong>the</strong>r vehicle, unlocked<br />
and stolen, contained an<br />
unlocked briefcase nd this<br />
was searched.<br />
- Heroin and marijuana were<br />
found in a “family visit unit”<br />
trailer within a penitentiary.<br />
-The seizure led to a charge<br />
<strong>of</strong> possession with intent to<br />
traffic.<br />
- Correctional Services<br />
provide <strong>the</strong> trailers to afford<br />
privacy).<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 186(2);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2).<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
4(3)(b); 738(1)(a);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2).<br />
- Corrections and<br />
Constitutional Release Act,<br />
S.C. 1992, c. 20 s. 52, 58;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) No discussion <strong>of</strong> s.24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded per<br />
s.24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The search warrant was obtained appropriately. The appellant’s expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy was that <strong>the</strong> state would preserve <strong>the</strong> goods and return <strong>the</strong>m upon <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant’s release.<br />
- <strong>On</strong>e’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is greatly reduced in belongings that have<br />
been seized by police (see Grant).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (factors to consider for reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (2) – The search was conducted in good faith: <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer was attempting to comply<br />
with <strong>the</strong> law.<br />
- (1) There is as lesser expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy (<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> physical person) in a car than in<br />
one’s home/<strong>of</strong>fice (R. v. Caslake).<br />
- Owners <strong>of</strong> briefcases generally have a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong><br />
contents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir briefcases - even if <strong>the</strong> briefcase is stolen.<br />
- Thus, <strong>the</strong> requirements for a valid search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> briefcase were met.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter v Southam (purpose <strong>of</strong> s.8).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (“contextual analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> totality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> circumstances”).<br />
- (1) Although <strong>the</strong>re is a reduced expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in a prison setting, <strong>the</strong>re was<br />
a subjective expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> units. They were locked, were for <strong>the</strong><br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> sleeping, and children were present. The subjective expectation was<br />
judged objectively reasonable (see Conway v. A-G <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>).<br />
- The trial judge had considered <strong>the</strong> unit a “cell”, and privacy is <strong>the</strong>refore subject to<br />
<strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prison’s legislation.<br />
- (2) However, drug trafficking is a very serious <strong>of</strong>fence and admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence<br />
would not affect <strong>the</strong> fairness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial.<br />
Prison – Surveillance<br />
R. v. Serendip<br />
Physio<strong>the</strong>rapy Clinic<br />
- A physio<strong>the</strong>rapy clinic was<br />
trying to defraud an insurance<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 487;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.7 and 8.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards: (what constitutes a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy” on “<strong>the</strong><br />
totality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> circumstances”).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8? - (1): Serious intrusions into privacy are justified if <strong>the</strong>re are reasonable grounds that<br />
<strong>the</strong> records sought will afford evidence about <strong>the</strong> commission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence.<br />
60
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
[2004] 192 O.A.C. 71<br />
Rosenberg J.A.;<br />
Armstrong and Blair<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level - SCC<br />
leave to appeal<br />
refused<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
withheld<br />
R. v. Tessling<br />
[2003]168 O.A.C. 124<br />
Abella J.A.; O’Connor<br />
A.C.J.O and Sharpe<br />
J.A. (con).<br />
*reversed SCC (leave<br />
to appeal)<br />
Property – Home;<br />
Surveillance – FLIR<br />
company and was not<br />
providing all <strong>the</strong> necessary<br />
records.<br />
- Health records were seized<br />
by police who were seeking<br />
allegedly fabricated and<br />
falsified information.<br />
- <strong>On</strong> <strong>the</strong> strength <strong>of</strong><br />
information gained from two<br />
informants, police used FLIR<br />
technology to obtain a<br />
<strong>the</strong>rmal image <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> home <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) No discussion <strong>of</strong> s.24(2).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- The Application Judge noted <strong>the</strong> universal concern for privacy with regard to<br />
health records.<br />
- S.487 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code balances private/public rights.<br />
- It was not confidential health information that was sought, but evidence <strong>of</strong> fraud.<br />
- Ref. to O’Connor (reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy re records held by 3 rd<br />
parties).<br />
- Ref. to Dyment (serious nature <strong>of</strong> intrusion into health record).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter v. Southam ((in Dyment) where it’s feasible to obtain prior<br />
authorization, such authorization will be considered a pre-condition).<br />
- (1) The appellant had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in activities carried on<br />
within his residence. FLIR violated this expectation. No reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy exists for heat emanating from a home, but here <strong>the</strong> information revealed<br />
activities within <strong>the</strong> house.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (two-step s.8 test).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy re records held by a third pary;<br />
core biographical information; electricity consumption records fall outside this<br />
protection and are accessible to <strong>the</strong> public).<br />
- Ref. to Kelly (reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy from low-level aerial<br />
surveillance).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter v Southam ((in Evans) s.8 applies where a reasonable expectation<br />
<strong>of</strong> privacy has been diminished by an investigatory technique).<br />
- (2) The FLIR technology revealed activities inside <strong>the</strong> home beyong what would<br />
be detectable by normal observation or surveillance.<br />
- The search warrant was not lawfully obtained.<br />
- This will enhancee public confidence.<br />
144096 <strong>Canada</strong> Ltd.<br />
v. <strong>Canada</strong> (Attorney<br />
General)<br />
[2002] 168 O.A.C. 201<br />
Morden J.A.; Borins<br />
and Simmons JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* no history<br />
- Six aircraft were in storage<br />
temporarily “for <strong>the</strong> winter”.<br />
- <strong>Canada</strong> Customs seized and<br />
stored <strong>the</strong> six aircraft and<br />
later ano<strong>the</strong>r, on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> a<br />
breach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Customs Act.<br />
- The appellant alleges that<br />
<strong>the</strong> aircraft were damaged<br />
while improperly stored.<br />
- Customs Act, s. 106(1)<br />
(any action must be<br />
brought within 3 months),<br />
a.129 (challenge to<br />
seizure);<br />
- Crown Liability and<br />
Proceedings Act, s.3(b);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> seizure violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) No discussion <strong>of</strong> s.24(2).<br />
- Ref. to Kyllo v. US.<br />
- (1) There was no material on record to support a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
- The action commenced two years after <strong>the</strong> incident but <strong>the</strong> limitations period<br />
would actually have begun after <strong>the</strong> action was commenced (not from date <strong>of</strong> seizure<br />
but from date <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> storage).<br />
- Appeal allowed (except <strong>Chart</strong>er issues dismissed).<br />
- Custom Officer’s malice and intent to injure bring issue outside scope <strong>of</strong> a.106(1).<br />
61
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Property Search<br />
R. v. Anderson<br />
[2002] 155 O.A.C. 216<br />
Cronk J.A.; Moldaver<br />
and Feldman JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
*final level – SCC<br />
refused leave to<br />
appeal<br />
- Several years’ worth <strong>of</strong> he<br />
respondent’s personal<br />
journals were seized.<br />
- The seizure was under<br />
warrant.<br />
-The journals were used<br />
against <strong>the</strong> respondent on<br />
sexual assault and weapons<br />
charges.<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
686(4)(b)(i);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 11(c)<br />
and (d).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) No ruling under s.24(2) as respondent<br />
did not seek to have journals excluded on s.8<br />
grounds.<br />
- (1) Reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy re journals wasn’t argued. The focused was<br />
on <strong>the</strong> s.7 argument. S. 8 issues may be brought up in a new trial.<br />
- (2) Appeal allowed. Acquittals set aside and new trial ordered.<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. Dore<br />
[2002] 162 O.A.C. 56<br />
Feldman J.A.;<br />
Doherty and Simmons<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* no history<br />
Property Search –<br />
Home (not owner)<br />
R. v. B. (E.)<br />
[2002] 154 O.A.C. 167<br />
Cronk J.A.; Moldaver<br />
and Feldman JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* final level – SCC<br />
leave to appeal<br />
refused<br />
- The accused was charged<br />
with rape and his fingerprints<br />
were taken at <strong>the</strong> scene <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
crime.<br />
- The fingerprints were<br />
retained in <strong>the</strong> police system<br />
even though <strong>the</strong> rape charges<br />
were withdrawn.<br />
- The accused’s diary was<br />
used as evidence in a sexual<br />
assault case.<br />
- Identification <strong>of</strong><br />
Criminals Act, s. 2(1);<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 278.1-<br />
278.91, ss. 278.3(1) and<br />
(2);<br />
– <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8.<br />
- Criminal Code, s.278.3,<br />
s.278.1-278.91;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s. 8.<br />
- (1) Did keeping <strong>the</strong> fingerprints on file<br />
violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) No need to consider s.24(2).<br />
- (1) Did using <strong>the</strong> diary violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) No discussion <strong>of</strong> s.24(2).<br />
- (1) Fingerprinting is an invaluable tool <strong>of</strong> criminial investigation.<br />
- A significant loss <strong>of</strong> personal privacy is to be expected when arrested for a serious<br />
crime on reasonable and probable grounds (Hunter v. Southam).<br />
- Anything associated with one’s body, especially where not normally accessible, is<br />
<strong>of</strong> a personal and confidential nature.<br />
- The practice in o<strong>the</strong>r common law countries reflects a recognition that an acquitted<br />
person may retain an interest in maintaining <strong>the</strong> privacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir fingerprint<br />
information (Scotland; New Zealand; Tasmania; some states in <strong>the</strong> US).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information; contextual factors to consider).<br />
- (1) According to s. 278.1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code, personal journals and diaries are<br />
“records” containing personal information for which <strong>the</strong>re is a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy (legislative response to O’Connor).<br />
- This reasonable expectation limits <strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> permissible questioning but<br />
doesn’t preclude all questioning regarding <strong>the</strong> diary.<br />
- Ref. to Plant (diaries reveal intimate details <strong>of</strong> life/choice).<br />
- Ref. to Mills (unsuccessful use victom’s psychiatric records in a sexual assault<br />
case).<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. D'Amour<br />
2002 CanLII 45015<br />
(ON C.A.)<br />
Doherty J.A.; Carthy<br />
- The accused was receiving<br />
welfare while actually<br />
working.<br />
-By not informing <strong>the</strong> welfare<br />
authorities, she was<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 11(c),<br />
13, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 380.<br />
- (1) Did police obtaining <strong>the</strong> documents<br />
violate s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The s. 8 claim failed as D'Amour had no reasonable expectation that <strong>the</strong><br />
Department would not co-operate in <strong>the</strong> criminal prosecution <strong>of</strong> an allegation <strong>of</strong><br />
fraud against <strong>the</strong> Department, and that <strong>the</strong> documents would be provided to police in<br />
such an investigation.<br />
62
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
and Laskin JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/Search <strong>of</strong><br />
Person; Records<br />
R. v. Hurrell<br />
[2002] 161 O.A.C. 248<br />
Moldaver J.A.; Cronk<br />
and Gillese JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
*leave to appeal<br />
allowed – SCC<br />
Property Search –<br />
Home<br />
committing fraud.<br />
- The department asked for<br />
T4 slips and police <strong>the</strong>n<br />
obtained <strong>the</strong>se documents.<br />
- A search warrant was<br />
executed at <strong>the</strong> appellant’s<br />
home and weapons and<br />
ammunition were seized.<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
117.04(1);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.7, 8, 24(2).<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) No ruling on s. 24(2).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances test).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8).<br />
- (1) The <strong>Chart</strong>er is to be interpreted in light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> context in which a claim arises<br />
(Wholesale Travel).<br />
- The approach by McLachlin in Winko is useful here: <strong>the</strong> less <strong>of</strong> a threat one is to<br />
society, <strong>the</strong> less authority <strong>the</strong> criminal law has to restrict one’s liberty in <strong>the</strong> name <strong>of</strong><br />
protecting public safety.<br />
- s. 177.04(1) needs a constitutional overhaul. Ref. to Hunter v. Southam<br />
(information given on oath).<br />
- Do police have too much discretion under s. 177.04(1) in deciding when to invade<br />
an individual’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy?<br />
- The requirement for reasonable grounds to exist and be presented was lacking.<br />
R. v. Dhillon<br />
[2002] 161 O.A.C. 231<br />
Laskin and Gouge<br />
JJ.A.; Weiler J.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* no history<br />
- Following an improper<br />
photographic lineup, an<br />
eyewitness testified about a<br />
gunman.<br />
- Cell-mate testimony<br />
corroborated a confession.<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
686(1)(b)(iii).<br />
- No discussion <strong>of</strong> s.8 or s.24(2) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- (2) The search warrant was quashed and seized items returned <strong>of</strong> seized items.<br />
- A new trial was ordered (based on an error in instructions about <strong>the</strong> evidence).<br />
- There was a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy regarding <strong>the</strong> appellant’s<br />
communication with his cell-mate.<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Photo<br />
R. v. Briggs<br />
[2001] 149 O.A.C. 244<br />
Weiler J.A.; Austin<br />
and Borins JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level – SCC<br />
refused leave to<br />
appeal<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> Person –<br />
DNA Sample<br />
- Police got an order to take a<br />
DNA sample from <strong>the</strong><br />
accused.<br />
- What is <strong>the</strong> reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in an<br />
<strong>of</strong>fender’s DNA pr<strong>of</strong>ile?<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
487.04, 487.052,<br />
487.07(3);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.1, 7, 8, 24(2).<br />
- (1) No direct discussion <strong>of</strong> s.8 or s.24(2).<br />
Reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy was<br />
discussed in relation to s. 7 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- Appeal dismissed.<br />
- (1) Different reasonable expectations <strong>of</strong> privacy are afforded to a suspect not<br />
charged vs. a person arrested and charged vs. a person convicted vs. a person subject<br />
to a custodial sentence.<br />
- People have a reasonable expectation that samples taken will only be used for <strong>the</strong><br />
purposes for which <strong>the</strong>y are given. Use for a different purpose violates s. 8.<br />
- In deciding to make an order, consider: <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> a criminal record; <strong>the</strong><br />
nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence; circumstances surrounding commission; <strong>the</strong> impact on<br />
privacy; and security <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> person.<br />
- S. 487.07(3) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code: taking <strong>of</strong> samples is to be done in a manner that<br />
respects <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fender’s privacy and is reasonable in <strong>the</strong> circumstances.<br />
- Ref. to Stillman (reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy breached with DNA sample,<br />
accused not convicted).<br />
63
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Tran<br />
[2001] 149 O.A.C. 120<br />
Borins J.A.; Weilder<br />
and Austin JJ.A. (con).<br />
* no history<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> Person –<br />
Blood Sample<br />
R. v. Inco Ltd.<br />
[2001] 146 O.A.C. 66<br />
McMurtry C.J.O.;<br />
Laskin J.A. and Blair<br />
R.S.J. (con).<br />
* final level – SCC<br />
refused leave to<br />
appeal<br />
- Following an accident, <strong>the</strong><br />
accused was taken to hospital<br />
where he consented to<br />
providing blood samples for<br />
medical purposes but not for<br />
a criminal investigation.<br />
- Police obtained <strong>the</strong> samples<br />
without a warrant.<br />
- Employees were compelled<br />
to submit to questioning and<br />
to produce documents and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r material regarding <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
employer’s polluting<br />
practices.<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.255(3),<br />
(2) and (1);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.7, 8, 11(b),(d),<br />
24(2).<br />
- <strong>On</strong>tario Water Resources<br />
Act, s. 15, 19(1), 20(2),<br />
30(1) and (2);<br />
- Provincial Offences Act,<br />
s. 120;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b),<br />
11(d).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> seizure violate s.8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- Did <strong>the</strong> compulsory ga<strong>the</strong>ring <strong>of</strong> documents<br />
infringe employees’ reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy?<br />
• Inco lack standing for a claim for relief<br />
regarding <strong>the</strong> s. 8 argument.<br />
• No ruling on s.8, no discussion <strong>of</strong> s.24(2).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter v. Southam (“reasonableness” <strong>of</strong> reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy; high reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy regarding bodily integrity).<br />
- Ref. to Dyment (social value in retaining information about oneself; use <strong>of</strong><br />
information must conform with <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> collection).<br />
- (1) There was no warrant to obtain a blood sample under s. 256(1) Criminal Code.<br />
- The SCC has found that a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy exists for hospital<br />
patients undergoing treatment for injuries sustained in an automobile accident and<br />
for blood analysis results, so long as <strong>the</strong> blood was collected for medical reasons<br />
was results were not to be shared with non-medical personnel.<br />
- (2) The blood samples were used for non-medical purposes without consent so <strong>the</strong><br />
appeal is allowed and <strong>the</strong> convictions for impaired driving are set aside.<br />
- Ref. to Dyment (information about blood collected for medical reasons may not be<br />
share with non-medical personnel without consent).<br />
- In Comite Paritaire v. Potash, LaForest held that constitutional guarantee <strong>of</strong> s. 8<br />
varies depending on whe<strong>the</strong>r a “search” or an “inspection” is at issue.<br />
- The abuse <strong>of</strong> process appeal is allowed.<br />
- Ref. to O’Connor.<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. S. (G.) (R. v.<br />
Su<strong>the</strong>rland)<br />
[2001] 146 O.A.C. 53<br />
Laskin J.A.;<br />
Finlayson and<br />
Labrosse JJ.A. (con).<br />
*final level – SCC<br />
refused leave to<br />
appeal<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. Adams<br />
2001 CanLII 16024<br />
- The accused was charged<br />
with <strong>the</strong> sexual assault and<br />
assault <strong>of</strong> his wife.<br />
- Both <strong>the</strong> accused and his<br />
wife were mentally<br />
challenged persons.<br />
- The wife had gone to a<br />
support worker for help and<br />
counselling.<br />
- The accused wanted access<br />
to <strong>the</strong> counselling records.<br />
- The accused was arrested in<br />
<strong>the</strong> laundry room <strong>of</strong> a<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 761<br />
and s.718.2(e).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7 and 12.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 529,<br />
- Appeal against convictions and sentence is<br />
dismissed.<br />
- No discussion <strong>of</strong> s.8 or s.24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
- A person may have a privacy interest in a record though it is not made for a<br />
<strong>the</strong>rapeutic purpose and even if it is in <strong>the</strong> Crown’s possession.<br />
- The appellant’s argument turns on <strong>the</strong> adequacy or <strong>the</strong> allocation <strong>of</strong> resources<br />
within <strong>the</strong> federal correctional system. The court is without adequate record to<br />
decide this constitutional question, so <strong>the</strong>re is no ground for <strong>the</strong> appeal.<br />
- (1) The accused had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> laundry room <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
house where he was staying even if he wasn’t <strong>the</strong> owner <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> house.<br />
64
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
(ON C.A.)<br />
Carthy J.A.; Charron<br />
and McCombs JJ.A.<br />
(con)<br />
* final level<br />
rooming house.<br />
- Police entered without a<br />
warrant and found drugs on<br />
him.<br />
529.3.<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- The police <strong>the</strong>refore needed a warrant to validly enter <strong>the</strong> house.<br />
- Ref. to Mellenthin<br />
Home search –<br />
(without warrant)<br />
R. v. Su<strong>the</strong>rland<br />
[2000] 139 O.A.C. 53<br />
Carthy J.A.; Abella<br />
and Feldman JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* no history<br />
Property – Home<br />
(Perimeter search)<br />
R. v. Mulligan<br />
2000 CanLII 5625<br />
(ON C.A.)<br />
Sharpe J.A.; Laskin<br />
and Feldman JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* final level<br />
Vehicle Search<br />
R.v. B.P.<br />
[2000] 137 O.A.C. 66<br />
Weiler, Rosenberg,<br />
Sharpe, JJ.A.<br />
* no history<br />
Prison<br />
R. v. Lauda<br />
[1999] 121 O.A.C. 365<br />
- Police searched <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s apartment at night.<br />
-The warrant had been issued<br />
based on false information.<br />
-He was believed to have<br />
stolen watches and rings.<br />
- The accused was drunk in<br />
his truck on his own property<br />
when police found him and<br />
arrested him for drunk<br />
driving.<br />
- The accused resisted arrest.<br />
-The accused was charged<br />
with a number <strong>of</strong> sexual<br />
assaults that occured over<br />
decades.<br />
- He wanted <strong>the</strong> Children and<br />
Family Services records <strong>of</strong><br />
one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> complainants<br />
because it supports his claim<br />
<strong>of</strong> innocence.<br />
- The police entered an<br />
unused private cornfield,<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 488<br />
and 487 (warrant by day);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8 and 24(2).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b),<br />
24(2).<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
686(1)(b)(iii); 761;<br />
718.2(e); 278.3.<br />
- Controlled Drugs and<br />
Substances Act, s. 29;<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s.24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) Was <strong>the</strong> vehicle search an arbitrary<br />
detainment and did it violate <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Would requiring production violate <strong>the</strong><br />
complainant’s privacy rights?<br />
• NO<br />
-No discussion <strong>of</strong> s.8 or s.24(2).<br />
- (1) The Criminal Code imposes special requirements when a search by night is<br />
contemplated. No additional justification for a night search exists here: <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
likely no time sensitivity regarding recovery <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> goods. Based on a “totality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
circumstances”, <strong>the</strong> warrant is invalid.<br />
- (2) The search <strong>of</strong> a dwelling house must be undertaken with responsibility<br />
appropriate to a place where <strong>the</strong> highest degree <strong>of</strong> privacy is expected.<br />
- Applied Collins.<br />
- (1) It is plainly in <strong>the</strong> interests <strong>of</strong> a property owner or occupant that <strong>the</strong> police<br />
investigate suspected crimes being committed against <strong>the</strong> owner or occupant.<br />
- Before <strong>the</strong> search <strong>the</strong> police arrested <strong>the</strong> accused with just cause (drunk driving)<br />
and <strong>the</strong> accused <strong>the</strong>refore had lowered reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy when he<br />
was searched.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police must act in good faith).<br />
- Ref. Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances test).<br />
- Ref. Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s. 8).<br />
- The appeal from <strong>the</strong> conviction was allowed and a new trial ordered.<br />
- At <strong>the</strong> new trial, <strong>the</strong> appellant may be able to argue that <strong>the</strong>re is no reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> information contained in <strong>the</strong> records.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8? - (1) <strong>On</strong>e must consider steps taken to protect <strong>the</strong> property against unwelcome<br />
intrusion.<br />
65
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Moldaver J.A.;<br />
Osborne A.C.J.O and<br />
Rosenberg J.A. (con).<br />
* no history<br />
Property Search –<br />
Home<br />
which was gated and fenced,<br />
without a warrant.<br />
- They seized marijuana from<br />
<strong>the</strong> cornfield.<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 41;<br />
- Trespass to Property Act,<br />
ss.2 (1)(a)(i) and (ii); (b);<br />
3(1) (a) and (b);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2).<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded under<br />
s.24(2)?<br />
• NO<br />
- The rights <strong>of</strong> a property holder to be free from police intrusion can be restricted<br />
only by powers granted in clear statutory language.<br />
- An “open field” is different from a private dwelling (see R. v. Patriquen).<br />
- Property holders have an expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in unoccupied lands. They have<br />
<strong>the</strong> right to exclude <strong>the</strong> public from <strong>the</strong>ir property even where visible to public.<br />
- (2) After balancing <strong>the</strong> severities, <strong>the</strong> marijuana must be admitted, but evidence<br />
taken from <strong>the</strong> home is to be excluded.<br />
-Admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence won’t affect <strong>the</strong> fairness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial.<br />
R. v. Lauda<br />
[1998] 106 O.A.C. 161<br />
Borins J.A.;<br />
McMurtry C.J.O. and<br />
Abella J.A. (con).<br />
* affirmed SCC<br />
Property Search –<br />
Home<br />
R. v. Nicolosi<br />
[1998] 110 O.A.C. 189<br />
Doherty J.A.; Brooke<br />
and Charron JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
* final level<br />
Property – Vehicle<br />
Corp.<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
Civil Liberties Assn.<br />
v. <strong>Canada</strong> (A-G)<br />
[1998] 111 O.A.C. 51<br />
- Police received informant<br />
information (an aerial<br />
photograph) that unused<br />
farmland was being used to<br />
grow marijuana.<br />
- This led to subsequent<br />
inspection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land without<br />
a search warrant and visual<br />
surveillance for 5 days.<br />
- Cannabis and marijuana<br />
cultivation was found.<br />
-At trial <strong>the</strong> accused was<br />
acquitted when <strong>the</strong> evidence<br />
was excluded.<br />
-The Crown appeals.<br />
- As part <strong>of</strong> a routine search,<br />
police impounded and <strong>the</strong>n<br />
searched an unlicensed motor<br />
vehicle.<br />
- An unregistered gun was<br />
found and <strong>the</strong>n seized.<br />
- CSIS surveillance<br />
techniques used to investigate<br />
“activities” that are “threats<br />
to <strong>the</strong> security <strong>of</strong> <strong>Canada</strong>”.<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 487,<br />
487.01.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2).<br />
- Highway Traffic Act, ss.<br />
221 (1) and (2).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2).<br />
- Cdn Security Intelligence<br />
Service Act. ss. 12, 21, 26;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.7, 8.<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- Appeals dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.<br />
- No discussion <strong>of</strong> s.8 or s.24(2).<br />
- Ref to Edwards (factors to apply to establish a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy -<br />
surrounding circumstances).<br />
- (1) The trial judge found that a trespasser has a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy<br />
while cultivating a property.<br />
- According to s.24(2), appellate courts owe deference to lower courts on<br />
admissibility <strong>of</strong> evidence decisions (R. v. Grant)<br />
- (2) The trial judge erred in excluding <strong>the</strong> ecidence under s24(2). He failed to<br />
sufficiently consider <strong>the</strong> relevant factors as laid out in Collins (police surveillance as<br />
‘least intrusive type <strong>of</strong> search’; not a private dwelling; plants visible from aerial<br />
view or people using <strong>the</strong> farm).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- (1) The reasonableness <strong>of</strong> police conduct is judged based on <strong>the</strong> circumstances.<br />
- The fundamental importance <strong>of</strong> licensing in regulating motor vehicles legitimizes<br />
state power to remove all improperly licensed vehicles from <strong>the</strong> roadway. Police<br />
conduct <strong>the</strong>refore fell within <strong>the</strong> statute.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> circumstances).<br />
- Ref. to Collins (facts applies; search is constitutional where authorized by law and<br />
both <strong>the</strong> law and <strong>the</strong> search are reasonable).<br />
66
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Charron, J.A.; Abella<br />
and Austin JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level – SCC<br />
refused leave to<br />
appeal<br />
Surveillance<br />
R. v. Laurin<br />
[1997] 98 O.A.C. 50<br />
Morden A.C.J.O.;<br />
McKinlay and Laskin<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* no history<br />
Surveillance – Visual<br />
R. v. Noseworthy<br />
[1997] 100 O.A.C. 76<br />
Austin J.A.;<br />
McMurtry and<br />
McKinley JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level<br />
Property – Home<br />
(Warrant)<br />
- Police received a phone call<br />
tip regarding marijuana<br />
cultivation.<br />
- Police surveiled <strong>the</strong> house<br />
from outside locations close<br />
to <strong>the</strong> appellant’s basement<br />
apartment, and observed<br />
visual and olfactory evidence<br />
<strong>of</strong> cannabis cultivation,<br />
which led to a conviction for<br />
cultivation and possession.<br />
-The appellant seeks to<br />
determine whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> police<br />
observations were a<br />
warrantless search.<br />
- A search warrant for <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s home was issued<br />
under s.487, <strong>the</strong> judicial<br />
power to issue an anticipatory<br />
search warrant.<br />
-Many items were seized.<br />
- Narcotics Control Act, ss.<br />
6(1) and 3(1);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2).<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 487.01.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) With regard to <strong>the</strong> appellant’s side yard, <strong>the</strong> appellant had no right to exclude,<br />
but <strong>of</strong>ficers had no right to be <strong>the</strong>re.<br />
- The appellant’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy was infringed by police because<br />
<strong>the</strong>y had no right to be on <strong>the</strong> property and make observations through <strong>the</strong> window<br />
from 2 inches away.<br />
- There is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy regarding smells emanating from<br />
one’s apartment into <strong>the</strong> hallway.<br />
- The court referred to an American case which found a diminished expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy <strong>of</strong> residents <strong>of</strong> multiple occupancy dwellings (La Fave, U.S.).<br />
- (2) There are three broad categories for exclusion (Collins).<br />
- The justice system is brought less into disrepute by admitting <strong>the</strong> evidence than<br />
excluding it.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter v. Southam (objective <strong>of</strong> s.8).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (cultivation <strong>of</strong> marijuana is a serious <strong>of</strong>fence).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (where a warrant is obtained through a <strong>Chart</strong>er violation, <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence can be excluded under s.24(2).<br />
- Under s.487.01(4), where a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy exists, a judge<br />
issuing a warrant is to impose terms and conditions to ensure respect <strong>of</strong> privacy “as<br />
much as possible”.<br />
-The <strong>Court</strong> determined that <strong>the</strong> trial judge’s narrow interpretation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
authorization <strong>of</strong> anticipatory search warrants in s.487.01 is inconsistent with <strong>the</strong><br />
purpose and legislative scheme <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> provision: “Parliament intended in s. 487.01 to<br />
create a flexible power that would be available in a broad range <strong>of</strong> investigative<br />
circumstances provided that:<br />
(a) <strong>the</strong> Hunter v. Southam reasonableness criteria are met;<br />
(b) granting an order is in <strong>the</strong> best interests <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice;<br />
(c) interference with bodily integrity is not permitted; and<br />
(d) no o<strong>the</strong>r provision can be used to authorize <strong>the</strong> order.”<br />
67
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Pelland<br />
[1997] Carswell<strong>On</strong>t<br />
965<br />
Catzman, Labrosse<br />
and Moldaver JJ.A.<br />
* no history<br />
- Police made a secret voice<br />
recording <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused<br />
while he was detained and<br />
used it for voice<br />
identification purposes.<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 278.1,<br />
278.2., 509 and 699;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.7, 8, 24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> recording violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Hunter v. Southam (reasonableness criteria).<br />
- Ref. to Wong (video surveillance <strong>of</strong>fensive without prior judicial approval).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (s.487 parallels s.8 protection <strong>of</strong> information privacy interests).<br />
- (1) The voice is a physical characteristic. The voice sample was <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
innocuous and did not implicate <strong>the</strong> appellant in criminality.<br />
- There is no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> sound <strong>of</strong> one’s voice.<br />
- (2) The accused didn’t object to having this evidence admitted at trial so he can’t<br />
try to exclude it on appeal.<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. Monney<br />
[1997] 105 O.A.C. 1<br />
Rosenberg J.A.;<br />
Morden J.A. (con);<br />
Weiler J.A. (dis).<br />
*reversed - SCC<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> Person –<br />
Body, Urinalysis<br />
- The accused was detained at<br />
<strong>the</strong> airport upon re-entry into<br />
<strong>Canada</strong> because he was<br />
suspected <strong>of</strong> having<br />
swallowed narcotics.<br />
- Officers were unaware <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> correct procedure for<br />
dealing with people who have<br />
swallowed narcotics.<br />
- The accused was strip<br />
searched and consent to<br />
provide a urine sample was<br />
coerced through <strong>the</strong> threat <strong>of</strong><br />
continued detention.<br />
- Customs Act, s. 98;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10,<br />
24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> strip search violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The strip search was not authorized by s. 98 because it was not conducted<br />
within a reasonable time.<br />
- Where a detention is unlawful, so too is a resulting seizure (here <strong>the</strong> urine).<br />
- Grounds to arrest must exist in order to justify such an intrusion and interference<br />
with a traveller’s liberty and reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
-According to LaForest in Wong, <strong>the</strong> question is not whe<strong>the</strong>r a person who<br />
swallows drugs to smuggle <strong>the</strong>m can expect to be detained for a lengthy period, but<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r a traveller to <strong>Canada</strong> can reasonably expect a lengthy detention and close<br />
monitoring <strong>of</strong> bodily functions. The reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy remains at a<br />
level above this even when reduced due to border issues.<br />
- Dissent (Weiler): <strong>On</strong>e’s reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy regarding a urine<br />
sampling is not different from that regarding a frisk search (Gibs in Fieldhouse).<br />
- (2) Because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> violations, <strong>the</strong> evidence is to be excluded.<br />
R. v. Joyce (R v.<br />
Kennedy)<br />
1996 CanLII 3040<br />
(ON C.A.)<br />
- Police searched <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s garbage because he<br />
matched <strong>the</strong> description <strong>of</strong> a<br />
murder suspect.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• NO<br />
- Ref. to Collins (conditions for a reasonable search per Lamer).<br />
- (1) The accused had no reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to his<br />
abandoned garbage.<br />
Morden J.A., Weiler<br />
J.A. and Rosenberg<br />
J.A.<br />
* final level<br />
Home search –<br />
68
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
(without warrant)<br />
R. v. Belnavis<br />
1996 CanLII 4007<br />
(ON C.A.)<br />
Doherty J.A.;<br />
Osbourne and Austin<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Affirmed SCC<br />
Vehicle Search<br />
- The accused was driving a<br />
car with a U.S. license plate<br />
and was speeding.<br />
- Police pulled <strong>the</strong> car over<br />
and found garbage bags full<br />
<strong>of</strong> stolen goods.<br />
- The accused was arrested<br />
based on a warrant for<br />
outdtanding traffic fines.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8 and 24(2). - (1) Was <strong>the</strong> vehicle search an arbitrary<br />
detainment and did it violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Belnavis had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> vehicle<br />
and <strong>the</strong> search was <strong>the</strong>refore not authorized by law.<br />
- Belnavis' arrest on a warrant for <strong>the</strong> outstanding traffic fines justified her continued<br />
detention and could have justified <strong>the</strong> towing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> vehicle back to <strong>the</strong> police<br />
station. It could not, however, justify a search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> vehicle, since a search could<br />
only be said to be incidental to an arrest if it served some purpose connected to <strong>the</strong><br />
arrest.<br />
- (2) There was no element <strong>of</strong> self-conscription in <strong>the</strong> procural <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> material from<br />
<strong>the</strong> car. The material pre-existed <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er breach and did not emanate from<br />
Belnavis.<br />
- Belnavis was lawfully detained throughout.<br />
- The admission <strong>of</strong> this evidence did not render <strong>the</strong> trial unfair, even if it was<br />
obtained based on an unconstitutional search.<br />
R. v. Maffei<br />
1994 CanLII 300 (ON<br />
C.A.)<br />
Brooke, Finlayson<br />
and Austin JJ.A.<br />
* final level<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
person – Blood<br />
Samples<br />
R. v. Edwards<br />
[1994] 88 O.A.C. 321<br />
McKinlay J.A.;<br />
Finlayson J.A. (con);<br />
Abella J.A. (dis).<br />
* affirmed SCC<br />
Property – Home<br />
- The accused caused a fatal<br />
car crash.<br />
- He was taken to hospital<br />
and, while <strong>the</strong>re, a doctor<br />
took a blood sample.<br />
- Police seized <strong>the</strong> samples<br />
and used <strong>the</strong>m as evidence<br />
against <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
- The police searched <strong>the</strong><br />
home <strong>of</strong> a suspect’s<br />
girlfriend.<br />
- They seized drugs and<br />
arrested <strong>the</strong> girlfriend.<br />
-The suspect (<strong>the</strong> appellant)<br />
was driving with a suspended<br />
license and was later arrested.<br />
- Without a warrant, police<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police’s taking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> blood<br />
sample violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
- Narcotics Control Act, s.<br />
4(2).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b),<br />
24(2).<br />
• NO<br />
(2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> seizure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> phone/pager<br />
violate s.8?<br />
• NO (with regard to <strong>the</strong> appellant, but <strong>the</strong><br />
girlfriend has standing to challenge).<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence (drugs in <strong>the</strong><br />
apartment) be excluded?<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (police must act in good faith when conducting a search).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances test).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy; a warrantless<br />
search is presumed to be unreasonable).<br />
- (1) The blood sample came into existence for legitimate medical purposes and, as<br />
such, was real evidence that existed prior to, and irrespective <strong>of</strong>, <strong>the</strong> subsequent<br />
seizure and resulting <strong>Chart</strong>er breach.<br />
- (2) The police <strong>of</strong>ficer acted conscientiously and in good faith in pursuing his<br />
investigation and any breach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> appellant's <strong>Chart</strong>er rights was inadvertent.<br />
- The administration <strong>of</strong> justice is not brought into disrepute by admitting into<br />
evidence <strong>the</strong> test results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> blood samples.<br />
- (1) The existence <strong>of</strong> a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy depends on a contextual<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> totality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> circumstances.<br />
- The <strong>Court</strong> supports <strong>the</strong> trial judge’s finding <strong>of</strong> reasonable and probable grounds to<br />
arrest <strong>the</strong> accused for drug possession. (The trial judge found a violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
girlfriend’s rights, but not <strong>of</strong> those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> appellant since he had no reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in his girlfriend’s apartment).<br />
- Dissent (Abella): There is a s.8 violation and <strong>the</strong> evidence should be excluded. The<br />
couple’s three year relationship affords <strong>the</strong> appellant a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
69
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
(not owner)<br />
R. v. Silveira<br />
[1994] 69 O.A.C. 296<br />
Griffiths J.A.; Carthy<br />
J.A. (con); Abella J.A.<br />
(dis).<br />
*affirmed - SCC<br />
Property Search –<br />
Home (garage)<br />
R. v. Wijesinha<br />
[1994] 66 O.A.C. 356<br />
Galligan J.A.;<br />
Goodmann and Abella<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* affirmed - SCC<br />
seized and monitored a cell<br />
phone/pager found in <strong>the</strong><br />
girlfriend’s car.<br />
- Police conducted<br />
surveillance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> appellant,<br />
who was suspected <strong>of</strong> drug<br />
trafficking, for several days.<br />
- Because <strong>the</strong>y feared<br />
evidence would be destroyed,<br />
police entered <strong>the</strong> appellant’s<br />
family home without a<br />
warrant, in violation <strong>of</strong> his<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy.<br />
- The accused was <strong>the</strong>n<br />
charged with drug trafficking<br />
and possession.<br />
- The accused was a lawyer,<br />
and was surveilled by a<br />
police informant wearing a<br />
bodypack recorder.<br />
- Narcotics Control Act, s.<br />
10;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b).<br />
- Criminal Code, ss.<br />
139(2), 183;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2).<br />
• NO<br />
- Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> recording violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
privacy in <strong>the</strong> girlfriend’s house and he had his own key.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter v. Southam (“reasonableness” in s.8 protection).<br />
- (1) Police entered <strong>the</strong> residence uninvited and without a warrant), <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong><br />
initial entry was a trespass.<br />
- (2) The warrantless search was <strong>of</strong> little detriment to <strong>the</strong> appellant.<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (factors re admissibility <strong>of</strong> evidence: manifest culpability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
appellant and a low level <strong>of</strong> intrusion into reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- Dissent (Abella): The evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) because<br />
<strong>the</strong>re was a high reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy. Police are to be allowed strategic<br />
latitude but not where lawful alternatives are available (enough information existed<br />
to obtain a search warrant much earlier).<br />
– Ref to Hunter v. Southam (it is rare for individuals to have a low reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) The <strong>Court</strong> referred to LaForest J. in Duarte: in microphoning conversations,<br />
reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy turns on whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> speaker spoke in<br />
circumstances where it was reasonable to expect <strong>the</strong>ir words would only be heard by<br />
<strong>the</strong> persons being addressed.<br />
- Given that <strong>the</strong> appellant is a former Crown Attorney, he would have a reasonable<br />
expectation that police <strong>of</strong>ficers would not participate in unlawful activities,<br />
suggesting s. 8 may not apply at all<br />
Surveillance –<br />
Recorder<br />
SC <strong>of</strong> PEI – APPEAL DIVISION<br />
Dyne Holdings Ltd.<br />
v. Royal Insurance<br />
Company <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Canada</strong><br />
[1996] 135 D.L.R.<br />
(4th) 142<br />
Carru<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
C.J.P.E.I.; Mitchell,<br />
- An insured company sought<br />
a declaration that it was<br />
entitled to have its insurers<br />
defend it in an action<br />
commenced by a third party.<br />
- According to <strong>the</strong> insured,<br />
<strong>the</strong> statement <strong>of</strong> claim alleges<br />
<strong>the</strong> plaintiff suffered personal<br />
injury arising out <strong>of</strong> oral or<br />
- Prince Edward Island<br />
Rules <strong>of</strong> <strong>Court</strong>, 1990, Rule<br />
61.05(1)(c), 61.05(3).<br />
- No ruling on s.8 or 24(2). - Ref. to Hunter v. Southam (<strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> a right to privacy consisting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
right to be let alone and to be secure against encroachment upon one’s reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- Ref. to O’Connor (<strong>the</strong>re currently exists no tort for <strong>the</strong> infringement <strong>of</strong> privacy:<br />
any legal remedy depends on <strong>the</strong> circumstances <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case and <strong>the</strong> conflicting rights<br />
involved. Established torts may be given a wider meaning in order to recognize<br />
privacy interests).<br />
- There is no duty on Commercial, but <strong>the</strong>re is a duty on Royal and Continental, to<br />
defend <strong>the</strong> appellants.<br />
70
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
J.A., MacDonald,<br />
C.J.T.D.<br />
*final level – SCC<br />
refused leave to<br />
appeal<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
written publication <strong>of</strong><br />
material that disparages a<br />
person's or organization's<br />
goods, products or services<br />
and/or violates a person's<br />
right to privacy.<br />
PQ COURT OF APPEAL<br />
R. v. Murray<br />
[1999] J.Q. no 1037<br />
136 C.C.C. (3d) 197<br />
Rothman, Fish and<br />
Rousseau-Houle<br />
JJ.A.<br />
* no history<br />
Vehicle search<br />
R. v. Chahdi<br />
[1998] A.Q. no 377<br />
Fish, Rousseau-Houle<br />
and Chamberland<br />
JJ.A.<br />
* no history<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
person (blood<br />
sample)<br />
<strong>Canada</strong> (Procureur<br />
général) c. Goodleaf<br />
[1997] A.Q. no 2665<br />
LeBel, Mailhot and<br />
Proulx JJ.A.<br />
- The police set up a<br />
roadblock in an effort to<br />
apprehend fleeing bank<br />
robbers. In <strong>the</strong> process, <strong>the</strong><br />
police stopped Murray's truck<br />
and found that it contained<br />
contraband cigarettes.<br />
-Police seized blood-stained<br />
clothing from a murder<br />
victim's apartment.<br />
-They also obtained blood<br />
samples from <strong>the</strong> accused's<br />
socks and shoes, and from<br />
clothing in <strong>the</strong> trunk <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
victim's car, which <strong>the</strong><br />
accused was driving at <strong>the</strong><br />
time <strong>of</strong> arrest.<br />
- The blood matched both <strong>the</strong><br />
accused and <strong>the</strong> victim.<br />
- Police stopped <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s car because she<br />
was speeding.<br />
- When her car stopped, <strong>the</strong><br />
accused ran away, leaving her<br />
car door open.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 9, 24(1);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 240(1).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 10(a),<br />
24(2);<br />
Criminal Code, ss. 335,<br />
529.3.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2);<br />
- Excise Act, L.R.C. (1985)<br />
c. E-14, s. 163(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s. 8 by virtue <strong>of</strong><br />
being arbitrary?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) If <strong>the</strong>re had been a breach, should <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence have been excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure in <strong>the</strong> victim’s<br />
apartment violate s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> unwarranted search and seizure<br />
violate s.8?<br />
• NO (trial judge said YES)<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
- (1) By virtue <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir common law powers, <strong>the</strong> police could lawfully set up a<br />
roadblock in <strong>the</strong> circumstances <strong>of</strong> this case.<br />
- <strong>On</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> truck was stopped, <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer asked <strong>the</strong> respondent for permission to look<br />
within. This amounted to a warrantless search which was rationally connected to <strong>the</strong><br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> initial detention. The search was carried out in a reasonable manner<br />
and did not violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er.<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable).<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (must show <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy).<br />
- (1) The police did not require a warrant to search <strong>the</strong> victim's apartment as <strong>the</strong>y<br />
had received a credible complaint respecting her disappearance.<br />
- The accused had no right to privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> victim’s apartment.<br />
- (2) It is not in <strong>the</strong> broader social interest to exclude <strong>the</strong> evidence: exclusion would<br />
likely bring <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (must show that a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy has been<br />
violated).<br />
- (1) The <strong>of</strong>ficer had reasonable grounds for wanting to arrest <strong>the</strong> accused and to<br />
subsequently search <strong>the</strong> accused's vehicle.<br />
- By abandoning <strong>the</strong> vehicle, <strong>the</strong> accused lowered her expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with<br />
regard to it.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
71
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
* no history<br />
Vehicle search<br />
R. c. Solomon<br />
[1996] A.Q. no 2131,<br />
110 C.C.C. (3d) 354<br />
Gendreau, Baudouin<br />
et Otis JJ.A.<br />
* Affirmed at SCC<br />
<strong>Identity</strong>/search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
person - records<br />
- Police went to her car where<br />
<strong>the</strong>y found and seized 314<br />
bottles <strong>of</strong> imported alcohol –<br />
an illegal amount.<br />
- Police seized documents<br />
from cell phone records and<br />
intercepted phone<br />
conversations.<br />
• NO<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> seizure violate s.8?<br />
• NO (trial judge said YES)<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
NO<br />
- (1) It was <strong>the</strong> phone company and not <strong>the</strong> accused who had been targeted by <strong>the</strong><br />
search warrant and as a result, only <strong>the</strong> telephone company could attack it on<br />
grounds <strong>of</strong> unreasonableness.<br />
- The documents that were released to <strong>the</strong> police did not contain any biographical<br />
information or any list <strong>of</strong> names.<br />
- The interception and recording by <strong>the</strong> state <strong>of</strong> conversations from a cellular<br />
telephone (which is considered private conversation) would never be valid unless<br />
authorized.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (facts compared to Solomon; totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er does not authorize a search and seizure, but ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />
acts as a limitation on <strong>the</strong> powers <strong>of</strong> search and seizure set out in <strong>the</strong> Code).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information; s. 8 protects integrity, dignity, and<br />
autonomy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual).<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries <strong>of</strong> perimeter search).<br />
SK COURT OF APPEAL<br />
R. v. Bulmer<br />
[2005] 269 Sask. R.<br />
137<br />
Jackson J.A.;<br />
Sherstobit<strong>of</strong>f and Lane<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* no history<br />
Search <strong>of</strong> Person,<br />
Property – Vehicle<br />
- The accused’s vehicle was<br />
missing its front licence plate<br />
and was pulled over.<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>ficer ran a CPIC<br />
search and found an<br />
outstanding warrant<br />
pertaining to a seatbelt fine.<br />
- The accused had a knife,<br />
which <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer removed,<br />
clipped onto his waistband.<br />
- A pat-down search and a<br />
search <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> vehicle were<br />
conducted without <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
seeking consent.<br />
-The odour <strong>of</strong> cannabis was<br />
noted and upon searching <strong>the</strong><br />
trunk, a backpack <strong>of</strong><br />
marijuana was found.<br />
- HighwayTraffic Act, s.<br />
77(2) ;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8 and 24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The validity <strong>of</strong> a vehicle search depends on its having a valid purpose. There is<br />
no automatic right to search.<br />
- Police must secure evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fence for which <strong>the</strong> accused is being arrested.<br />
There is a lesser expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in a car than in one’s home or <strong>of</strong>fice or on<br />
one’s physical person (Caslake).<br />
-Thus, <strong>the</strong> appellant had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in <strong>the</strong> vehicle and <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer had no valid purpose in searching.<br />
72
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
R. v. Luc<br />
[2004] 188 C.C.C.<br />
(3d) 436<br />
Bayda C.J.S.);<br />
Sherstobit<strong>of</strong>f and Lane<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
* final level – SCC<br />
refused leave to<br />
appeal<br />
Property Search –<br />
Vehicle<br />
R. v. Galloway<br />
[2004] 187 C.C.C.<br />
(3d) 305<br />
Jackson J.A., Bayda<br />
C.J.S., Tallis J.A.<br />
* final level –<br />
- The accused was <strong>the</strong>n<br />
arrested for possession for <strong>the</strong><br />
purposes <strong>of</strong> trafficking in<br />
marijuana.<br />
- Police conducted a<br />
warrantless search <strong>of</strong> a<br />
vehicle and its contents,<br />
including luggage <strong>of</strong> which<br />
<strong>the</strong> driver and passenger<br />
disavowed ownership.<br />
- Police searched a vehicle<br />
involved in a fatal accident.<br />
- Fisheries Act;<br />
- Summary Offences<br />
Procedure Act, s. 4(4.2)<br />
(reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy reference in<br />
relation to s. 487.01<br />
Criminal Code);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 9, 24(2).<br />
- Criminal Code, ss. 249(4)<br />
and (3), 255(3) and (2),<br />
252(1); s. 487.051(1)(b);<br />
686(1)(a)(i);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8 and 24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The passenger had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with regard to <strong>the</strong><br />
vehicle but not its contents (because <strong>the</strong> passenger disavowed ownership <strong>of</strong><br />
luggage), so <strong>the</strong> search is invalid.<br />
- There may be situations where a passenger can establish a reasonable expectation<br />
<strong>of</strong> privacy regarding a vehicle (e.g. sharing <strong>of</strong> driving responsibilities - Belnavis).<br />
Here <strong>the</strong> passenger was <strong>the</strong> renter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> vehicle.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (onus is on each appellant to individually prove s. 8 violation).<br />
- (2) The evidence was non-conscriptive and can be admitted without compromising<br />
<strong>the</strong> fairness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial.<br />
-Ref. to Collins (3 factor test: conscriptive?; serious <strong>Chart</strong>er violation?; effect <strong>of</strong><br />
exclusion?).<br />
- Ref. to Kokesch (purpose <strong>of</strong> considering factors re seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er violation<br />
(disrepute <strong>of</strong> justice system); marijuana drug <strong>of</strong>fences are less serious than “hard”<br />
drug <strong>of</strong>fences).<br />
- (1) There is a greater expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy for <strong>the</strong> registered owner <strong>of</strong> a vehicle.<br />
- The normal expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy is reduced where <strong>the</strong> accused is not present nor<br />
in possession <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> vehicle for many months (but some reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy remains).<br />
- The search was warrantless, <strong>the</strong>refore prima facie unreasonable.<br />
Property Search –<br />
Vehicle<br />
R. v. Ladouceur<br />
[2002] 165 C.C.C. (3d)<br />
321<br />
Jackson J.A. and<br />
Bayda C.J.S; Tallis<br />
J.A. (con).<br />
* no history<br />
- Police set up a random<br />
check-stop program that went<br />
beyond <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
highway safety and included<br />
a search for illegal<br />
contraband.<br />
- The accused’s vehicle was<br />
searched and drugs were<br />
found.<br />
- Controlled Drugs and<br />
Substances Act, s. 5(2)<br />
Schedule II;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.8, 9, 24(2).<br />
- The <strong>Court</strong> found a s. 9 violation, making a s.<br />
8 finding unnecessary.<br />
- (2) Should evidence be excluded under<br />
s.24(2)?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The check-stops were made because <strong>of</strong> knowledge that illegal contraband was<br />
being transported along Hwy #1.<br />
- (2) The trial judge excluded evidence under s. 24(2).<br />
73
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
Property Search –<br />
Vehicle<br />
R. v. Spindloe<br />
[2001] 154 C.C.C.<br />
(3d) 8<br />
Jackson and<br />
Cameron JJ.A.;<br />
Bayda C.J.S. (con).<br />
* final level<br />
Property Search –<br />
Business<br />
- Police searched a store<br />
premises without a legitimate<br />
warrant to search.<br />
-They seized drug<br />
paraphernalia and literature.<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 462.2;<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss.7, 8, 24(2).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The common law authorizes plain view seizures where police presence is<br />
lawful.<br />
- At <strong>the</strong> first appeal, McLellan J.A. found that <strong>the</strong> appellant had a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy only where items were not in plain view to <strong>the</strong> public (see<br />
Fitt).<br />
- The trial judge found <strong>the</strong> seizure legitimate under s. 24(2), but returned seized<br />
items (per s. 490 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Criminal Code).<br />
- Ref. to Collins (a warrantless search is presumed unreasonable).<br />
74