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)
Wilson, La Forest
JJ. and Dickson C.J.
(con).
Traffic Stops
R. v. Kokesch
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 3,
Sopinka J. with
Wilson, LaForest
and McLachlin JJ.
(con);
Dickson,
L’Heureux-Dubé,
and Cory JJ. (dis).
- Police conducted a perimeter
search of the suspect’s home
without reasonable cause or
legal authority.
- Charter, ss. 1, 8, 24(2). - (1) Did the police perimeter search violate
s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded under
s. 24(2)?
• YES (4-3 decision)
- (1) The suspect had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the perimeter of his
home and the police lacked reasonable cause or lawful authority to search it.
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protecting reasonable expectation of privacy)
Property Search –
Home – Perimeter
R. v. Wong
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 36
La Forest J. with
Dickson,
L'Heureux-Dubé
and Sopinka JJ.
(con); Lamer and
McLachlin JJ.
(con); Wilson (dis).
- The accused rented a hotel
room for gambling.
-Police used video cameras to
record the activities in the hotel
room.
- Charter, ss. 8, 9, 10(b),
24(2);
- Criminal Code, s.
178.13(2)(c), (d)
(now s.186(4)(c), (d)).
- (1) Does the use of video recording by the
police without judicial authorization
constitute a search?
• YES
- (2) Does this search violate s. 8 of the
Charter?
• YES
- (1) This case follows Duarte where unauthorized electronic audio surveillance
violated s. 8 of the Charter.
• This rule extends to all technologies.
• If a free and open society cannot brook the prospect that agents of the state
should, in the absence of judicial authorization, have the right to record the words
of whomever they choose, it is equally inconceivable that the state should have
unrestricted discretion to target whomever it wishes for surreptitious video
surveillance (para 15)
- Parliament (not the courts) should dictate the law with regard to the use of video
recording.
Unwarranted use
of video
surveillance to
monitor actions of
the accused in a
hotel room
R. v. Duarte
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 30,
La Forest J. with
- An informant’s apartment
was monitored using audio
recording equipment.
- The informant and officer
- (3) Should the evidence be excluded under
s. 24(2)?
• YES
- Charter, ss. 1, 8, 24(2). - (1) Does making an audio recording without
the consent of the accused violate s.8?
• YES
- Ref. to Hunter (purposive approach of s. 8 analysis)
- Ref. to Dyment
- (1) A reasonable expectation of privacy in private communications does not exist if
the state can record private communications, without constraint, provided only that
it has secured the agreement of one of the parties to the communication.
- Audio recording is not the same as officers repeating their version of a
17