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)
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