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)
Property – Entry
A. (L.L.) v. B. (A.)
[1995] 4 S.C.R. 536,
Lamer C.J. with
Sopinka, Cory and
Major JJ. (con);
L’Heureux-Dubé J.
with La Forest and
Gonthier JJ. (dis in
part).
- The respondant was charged
with sexually assaulting L.L.A
when she was a child
- The defense subpoenaed all
institutional records relating
to L.L.A
- Charter, ss. 7, 8, 15. - To what extent is the defense entitled to
subpoena medical and therapeutic records
relating to complainants held by third parties
in sexual assault trials?
• To a limited extent only
-(1) The use of state power to compel the production of private records is justified
where: (a) the accused cannot obtain the information by any other reasonable means;
(b) the use is limited to fulfil the right to make a full answer and defence; (c)
arguments urging production don’t rest on discriminatory assumptions and
stereotypes; and (d) there is proportionality between the salutary and deleterious
effects of production.
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information)
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects only a reasonable expectation of privacy)
Personal Info –
Medical Info
143471 Canada Inc.
v. Quebec (A-G);
Tabah v. Quebec (A-
G)
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 339
Cory J. with
Sopinka, Iacobucci
and Lamer C.J.
(con); La Forest,
L’Heureux-Dubé
and McLachlin, JJ.
(dis).
- Commercial documents were
seized from the accused under
s.40 and 41 of the Act
Respecting the Ministre de
Revenu.
- The accused challenged the
validity of 40/41 using ss. 7
and 8 of the Charter.
- Charter, ss. 7, 8;
-Act Respecting the
Ministre de Revenu
- (1) Is it reasonable for courts to grant an
interlocutory injunction on the use of
information whose seizure is under review?
• YES
- (1) A consideration of three criteria in this case leads to the conclusion that the
impounding orders should be maintained.The criteria are: (a) the seriousness of the
question to be tried; (b) the possibility of irreparable harm to the applicant if the
interim order is refused; and (c) the balance of inconvenience caused to the parties
by the interim order.
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects a reasonable expectation of privacy)
Property Search –
Documents –
Regulatory
R. v. Colarusso:
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 20
La Forest J. with
L'Heureux-Dubé,
Sopinka, Gonthier,
Iacobucci and
Major JJ. (con);
- The accused had a double
car crash and was suspected of
being drunk.
- No breath test was
administered and the accused
refused the police’s request for
a blood sample.
- The coroner got the sample?
- Charter, ss. 1, 8, 24(1),
(2);
-Coroner’s Act, s.16(2).
- (1) Does s. 16(2) of the Coroner’s Act
violate s.8?
• Unnecessary to decide – the search was
invalid.
- (2) Is s.16(2) saved by s.1?
- (1) The seizure was illegal either because the police used the coroner as an agent or
because they took the results of a valid search from the coroner.
- (2) Evidence could legitimately have been obtained and its exclusion would put the
administration of justice into disrepute.
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects a reasonable expectation of privacy)
12