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)
Personal Info –
Regulatory
R. v. Thompson
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111
Sopinka J.;with
Dickson, Lamer and
L’Heureux-Dubé JJ
(con); Wilson J.
(dis); LaForest J.
(dis); McIntyre took
no part.
- Police had a a series of
authorizations to monitor a
suspect’s communications and
they discovered a plan to
smuggle marijuana.
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did unsupervised monitoring of public
payphones and surreptitious entry into private
dwellings violate s.8?
• NO
- (1) The search was conducted with authorization and was therefore not in violation
of.s.8. Authorizations were limited to the suspects and not overly broad.
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8).
Surveillance –
wiretap (on
payphones)
R. v. Hufsky
[1988] 1 S.C.R. 621
Le Dain J. with
Dickson C.J., Beetz,
Estey, McIntyre,
Wilson, and La
Forest JJ. (con).
- Police stopped the accused’s
car for a random license/
insurance check. They
detected alcohol and the
accused refused a breath test.
- Charter, ss. 1, 8. - (1) Did the police’s use of “spot checks”
violate s.8 of the Charter?
• NO
- (1) The police’s request that appellant surrender his licence and insurance card for
inspection did not constitute a search because there is no reasonable expectation of
privacy where a person is required to produce evidence of regulatory compliance.
Property Search –
Vehicle; Personal
Info –Breathalyser
R. v. Beare; R. v.
Higgins
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 387
La Forest J. with
Dickson, Beetz,
Estey, McIntyre,
Lamer, Wilson,
Le Dain and
L’Heureux-Dubé JJ.
- The accused challenged the
police practice of
fingerprinting accused (not
only convicted) prisoners
- Charter, ss. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11(c), (d), 24(1);
-Identification of
Criminals Act, s.2.
- (1) Does the fingerprinting of non-convicted
prisoners by police under s.2 of the
Indetification of Criminals Act violate ss.
7,8,9,10 and 11 (c) and (d) of the Charter?
• –NO with regard to s.8
- (1) This case focused largely on s.7, which was found not to be violated.
- S. 8 was also found not to be infringed.
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8).
19