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 ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
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