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)
Dickson C.J.,
L'Heureux-Dubé,
Sopinka, Gonthier
and McLachlin JJ.
(con); Lamer (con
in part).
Property Search –
Apartment;
Surveillance –
audio recording
R. v. Mckinlay
transport ltd.
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 627,
Wilson J. with
Lamer, La Forest
and L'Heureux-
Dubé JJ. (con);
Sopinka J. (con).
consented to the recording but
the accused did not.
- Revenue Canada requested
documents from the accused
for an audit. The accused
failed to deliver them.
- (2) Can it be justified under s.1?
• NO
- (3) Should the evidence be excluded under
s. 24(2)?
• NO
- Charter, ss. 1, 8. - (1) Does it violate s.8 of the Charter for
Revenue Canada to demand information for
tax purposes?
• NO
conversation.
- Audio recording of a suspect should require a warrant / judicial authorization.
- (3) The violation was a result of a reasonable misunderstanding on the part of the
police and thus the use of the officer’s notes drawn partially from the audio
recording would not bring the administration of law into disrepute.
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8 and that it only protects a reasonable expectation
of privacy).
- (1) The document requested was sought under a regulatory regime and the Hunter
test is ill suited to regulatory affairs.
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8 and that it only protects reasonable expectation of
privacy).
Personal Info –
Tax Information
Thomson
Newspapers Ltd. v.
Canada (Director of
investigation and
research, restrictive
trade practices
commission)
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 425,
- A corporation was accused
of “predatory pricing” and
required to provide
information and testify at
Committee under s.17 of the
Combines Act.
- Charter, ss. 1, 7, 8,
11(c), 13, 24(2);
- Combines Act, s. 17.
- (1) Does s. 17 of the Combines Act violate
ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter?
• NO
- (1) The Combines Act is regulatory in nature. Suspects have a low reasonable
expectation of privacy in the particular corporate information requested for the
purpose of the investigation
- (2) Seizure refers to tangible objects, not thoughts, so the requirement to testify
doesn’t violate s.8.
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8)
(s.8) La Forest J.
with L’Heureux-
Dubé J. (con);
Sopinka J. (dis in
part); Wilson and
Lamer JJ. (dis)
18