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)
(Wiretap)
R. v. Jacques
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 312
Gonthier J. with
Cory and Iacobucci JJ.
(con); Sopinka and
Major JJ. (dis).
Identity/search of the
person (body search)
R. v. Bernshaw
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 254,
Sopinka J. with La
Forest, Gonthier,
McLachlin and
Major JJ. (con);
Cory J. and Lamer
C.J. (con);
Iacobucci (con).
plaintiff.
- Police received information
at the U.S./Canada border from
border patrol that there was a
vehicle trying to cross the
border at an uncontrolled point
of entry.
- The tip led police to two cars:
one had a grandmother in it,
the other contained the
accused.
- Police seized alcohol from
the trunk of the accused.
- An officer pulled over the
accused under suspicion of
driving under the influence
- A breath test was conducted
but the officer didn’t ensure
the recommended 15 minute
waiting period.
- Charter, ss. 8, 9, 24(2);
- Customs Act, ss. 11(1),
99(1)(f), 159.
- Charter, ss. 1, 8, 10(b),
24(2).
- (1) Was the search of the trunk arbitrary and
therefore in violation of s. 8 of the Charter?
• NO
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• YES
- (1) Was the breathalyser test administered in
breach of the accused’s reasonable
expectation of privacy and in violation of s.
8?
• NO
- (1) The police received information about the vehicle in advance of approaching it.
They were told that there was a vehicle near the border at an uncontrolled point,
which already raised suspicion. The search wasn’t arbitrary because the police had a
reasonable belief that there could be danger at the border crossing point.
- (2) The evidence would not have been found without breaches of s.9 of the
Charter. Therefore, the admission of the evidence would render the trial unfair and
should be excluded.
- Ref. to Hunter (SCC has previously referred to the standard of "reasonable and
probable grounds" as one of "credibly-based probability; purpose of s. 8)
- Ref. to Collins
- (1) The reasonable expectation of privacy is only mentioned in L'Heureux-Dubé’s
concurring decision. She holds that the reasonable expectation of privacy of drivers
is low because they accept monitoring by police as a condition of being licensed to
drive and because impaired driving is a serious issue requiring state attention.
- Ref. to Hunter (s.8 protecting reasonable expectation of privacy)
Personal Info –
Breathalyzer
R. v. Silveira
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 297,
Cory J. with
Sopinka, Gonthier,
Iacobucci and
Major JJ. (con);
L’Heureux-Dubé J.
(con); La Forest J.
(dis).
- While a warrant was
pending, the police entered the
home of the accused and
secured it to ensure that
evidence wasn’t removed.
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did the police’s unauthorized entry of
the home violate s. 8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded under
s. 24(2)?
• NO
- (1) The police should not have entered as they did, but the evidence they found was
in this house and would have been found in the subsequent warranted search.
- (2) In future cases such evidence likely would be excluded.
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information)
- Ref. to Kokesch (police acting in good faith)
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8 to protect reasonable expectation of privacy)
11