Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...

Case Name (Court)
(Judge)
Location/Method of Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings
- (1) whether the search violates s. 8 of theCCharter? - Y/N
- (2) whether to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N
Reasoning
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)
R. v. Evans
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 8
Sopinka J., with
Cory and Iacobucci
JJ.; LaForest and
L'Heureux-Dubé JJ.
(con); Gonthier and
Major JJ. (dis)
Property Search –
Home, Sniffing
R. v. Edwards
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 128
Cory J. with Lamer
C.J., Sopinka,
Major, McLachlin,
Iacobucci, La
Forest, Gonthier,
and L'Heureux-
Dubé JJ. (con)
- An officer knocked on the
door of the suspect’s house,
identified himself, smelled
marijuana and immediately
arrested the suspect.
- Police seized drugs from the
apartment of the girlfriend of
the accused.
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did the police officer “sniffing” inside
the suspect’s home constitute a search in
violation of s.8?
- Charter, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 24;
- Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s.
217(2);
- Narcotic Control Act,
R.S.C., 1985, c. N-1 , s.
4(2).
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded under
s.24 (2)?
• NO – the officer acted in good faith
- (1) Did the police search of the girlfriend’s
apartment violate s.8 of the Charter?
• NO
- (2) Does the accused have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in his girlfriend’s
property?
• NO
- (1) The reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s doorway was waived to
facilitate social communication. When the terms of this waiver are exceeded (as they
were by the officers in this case) the intrusion is a search and requires judicial
authorization.
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable)
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries of a perimeter search)
- (1) The accused denies ownership of the drugs and was just a visitor at the
apartment. (He did not contribute to the rent.)
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy core biographical information)
- Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable; s. 8
protects people and not places)
Property Search -
not owner
Michaud v. Quebec
(Attorney General)
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 3
Lamer C.J. with
Gonthier, McLachlin
and Iacobucci JJ.
(con); L'Heureux-Dubé
J. (con); Sopinka,
Major, Cory, La
Forest JJ. (con).
Surveillance
- The appellant was the target
of an authorized wiretap
which led to his arrest.
- The appellant intended to sue
for damages and sought an
order to open the sealed
packet and copies of the
wiretap recordings
- The motion was dismissed as
premature since the appellant
was neither an accused nor a
- Criminal Code, R.S.C.
1985, c. C-46, ss. 122,
184.1, 185(1) (e), 186(1),
187, 189(1), 189(5), 190,
193(2)(c), 196(1);
- Charter, ss. 1, 7, 8,
11(d), 24.
- (1) Did denying access to this information
violate s. 8 of the Charter?
• YES
- S. 24(2) N/A
- (1) The trial judge should have given the appellant an opportunity to show that the
initial authorization was invalid, which would have entitled the appellant to access to
the sealed packet.
- (2) The judge did not err in denying the request for access to the tapes and
transcripts: access to recordings is not necessary to prove s.8 Charter rights were
infringed.
- Ref. to Hunter (an interception executed on less than reasonable and probable
grounds will violate the requirements of s. 186(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and thus
constitute an "unreasonable search or seizure" under s. 8.)
10