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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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) Iacobucci J., with Major, La Forest and Sopinka JJ. (con); Lamer and Gonthier JJ. (con with reasons); McLachlin J. (con with reasons) DNA sample for “investigations” - Police used the DNA to link the suspect to a previous crime. of s.8? • YES - (2) Should the evidence be excluded under s. 24(2)? • YES - Ref. to Dyment and Mellenthin Personal Info – DNA Baron v. Canada [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416, Sopinka J. with LaForest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. (con); Stevenson took no part. - Revenue Canada conducted searches of the suspect’s office and home and seized documents. - The suspect challenged Revenue Canada’s authority based on ss. 7, 8 and 15 of the Charter. - Charter, ss. 1, 7, 8, 11(d), 15; - Income Tax Act, s.231.3. - (1) Does s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act violate s.8 of the Charter? • YES - (1) S. 231.3 requires judges to issue warrants at the request of Revenue Canada. S. 8 requires judicial discretion in issuing warrants – here Parliament has limited the matters that judges can consider, contrary to s.8. Therefore, s. 231.3 is no longer valid. - Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects a reasonable expectation of privacy) Property Search – Office / Regulatory R. v. Macooh [1993] 2 S.C.R. 802, Lamer C.J. with La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. (con). - A police officer observed the accused running several stop signs and began pursuit. The accused attempted to hide in the apartment of a friend and the officer followed him into the apartment.. - Charter, ss. 7, 9. - (1) Did the police officer’s entry into the apartment in hot pursuit of the suspect violate ss. 7 or 9 of the Charter? • NO - (1) This case relates to a reasonable expectation of privacy only insofar as s.7 guarantees a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy because the courts won’t require an officer to abandon a chase at the suspect’s door. Property Search – Apartment – not owner 14
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. Dersch [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768, Major J. with Lamer C.J., La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. (con); L'Heureux- Dubé and Gonthier JJ. (con). - The accused was involved in a traffic accident and was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. - He rrefused to allow a blood sample to be taken but police got one from doctors. - Charter, ss. 1, 7, 8, 24, 32(1). - (1) Was the trial judge correct in allowing the blood evidence to be used at trial even though it was taken without the consent of the accused? • NO - (2) Should the evidence be excluded under s. 24(2)? • YES - (1) The accused has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his medical information. The taking of the blood sample without consent and sharing of that information with the police violated s.8. Information was taken without warrant so is presumed illigitmate and the Crown failed to rebut this presumption. - (2) Blood test results were invalid and without that evidence the Crown had no case. - Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable) Personal Info – Blood Sample Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872, La Forest J. with L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. (con). Prison - inmate and cell searches - A prisoner complained about female / male body searches and random cell checks. - Charter, ss. 1, 7, 8, 15. - (1) Does the frisking of a male inmate by a female guard violate ss. 7, 8 or 15? • NO - (2) Does female guard random cell searches violate s. 8? • Trial Judge: YES; • CA and SCC: NO - (1) Frisking and cell searches are necessary for prison security. Prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their person or their cell. Since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there is no s.8 issue. R. v. Plant [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281 Sopinka J. with Lamer, LaForest, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. (con); McLachlin J. (con). Property Search – Perimeter; Hydro Usage - Police checked electricity use in the suspect’s home and conducted a warrantless perimeter search of the home in which marijuana was being grown. - Charter, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did the warrantless perimeter search of the building constitute a search in violation of s.8? • YES - (2) Did the electronic monitoring of the accused’s electricity use constitute a search? • NO - (3) Should the evidence be excluded under - (1) There were no exigent circumstances that justified the police’s actions in conducting a perimeter search without a warrant. - (2) The accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to his electricity use because the information doesn’t reveal intimate details. - (3) The evidence was not excluded because police acted reasonably and in keeping with the law at the time. The electricity use would have been enough to get a warrant for a search. - Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries of a home perimeter search) - Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protecting people and not places) 15
Page 1 and 2: Case Name (Court) (Judge) Location/
Page 13: Case Name (Court) (Judge) Location/
Page 65 and 66:
Case Name (Court) (Judge) Location/
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?