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)
Lamer, Cory,
McLachlin and
Major JJ. (con).
Personal Info –
Accused’s Info
Comité paritaire de
l'industrie de la
chemise v. Potash;
Comité paritaire de
l'industrie de la
chemise v. Sélection
Milton
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 406,
La Forest J. with
Lamer C.J., Cory,
Iacobucci,
McLachlin and
Sopinka JJ. (con);
L'Heureux-Dubé J.
with Gonthier and
Major JJ. (con).
under 16(2) and gave the
results to police.
- Provincially mandated
inspectors suspected illegal
labour practices but were
barred from entering the
premises to inspect them.
- The defendants claimed that
s.22(e) of the Act Respecting
Collective Agreement
Decrees, which allowed for
inspections, violated s. 8.
- Charter, ss. 1, 8, 33;
- Act Respecting
Collective Agreement
Decrees, s.22(e).
• N/A
- (3) Should the evidence be excluded under
s. 24(2)?
• NO
- (1) Does the power of inspectors to enter
premises for inspections violate s. 8 of the
Charter?
• NO
- (1) The importance of ensuring proper working conditions outweighs privacy
rights. The reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to inspection-related
documents is not high.
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy; reasonable expectation of privacy protecting
core biographical information)
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8; s.8 protects only a reasonable expectation of
privacy)
Property Search –
Regulatory
R. v. Boersma
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 488
Iacobucci J. with
Sopinka, Gonthier,
Cory and Major JJ.
(con).
- The accused was charged
with cultivating marijuana on
Crown land. Police spotted
plants in plain sight and
subsequently arrested and
charged the accused.
- Charter, s. 8. - (1) Did the accused have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the location of his
growing operation?
• BCCA: NO
• SCC: appeal dismissed
- (1) The accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy as he was using Crown
land. Police spotted the plants from a nearby road and in no way violated Mr
Boersma’s s.8 privacy rights.
Property Search -
Crown Land;
R. v. Borden
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 145,
- The accused in a sexual
assault case consented to
police taking and using a
- Charter, ss. 8, 10(a), (b),
24(2).
- (1) Does the use of DNA evidence in
investigations other than those for which
permission was granted constitute a violation
- (1) The accused should have been made to understand that the police intended to
use the DNA in both investigations.
13