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)
Ritchie, Beetz,
Estey, McIntyre,
Chouinard, Lamer
and Wilson JJ.
(con); Laskin C.J.
took no part.
Property Search –
Office
- (2) Can this violation be justified under s.1?
• NO (Court stuck down CIA 10(1) and 10
(3)).
standard.
AB COURT OF APPEAL
R. v. Yague
2005 ABCA 140
Côté J.A. with
Wittman and Russell
JJ.A. (con)
*Final Level
Property - vehicle
search
- Police stopped the accused
after he violated traffic laws.
- The police then recognized
the accused as member of an
illegal drug trade party.
- In addition, Lau, a
passenger in the car, was on
probation and had breached
the conditions of probation..
- The accused had cocaine in
his car and was arrested.
Charter, ss. 8, 9, 24(2).
- (1) Was the stop arbitrary?
• NO - because there was already a traffic
violation that allowed police to stop the
accused.
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
- (1) Where the police have reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, such as a
traffic violation, a search incidental to an arrest is legal and not in violation of section
8 of the Charter.
- The police were justified in searching the vehicle upon discovering that Lau was in
breach of the conditions of his probation.
- (2) The evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
- NOTE - Evidence is excluded under s. 24(2) where its admission would tend to
render the trial unfair.
• As outlined in R. v. Stillman (1997), the approach when considering trial fairness
requires that the evidence be classified as either conscriptive or non-conscriptive.
• In this case, the evidence sought to be excluded, namely, cocaine and drug
trafficking paraphernalia, is non-conscriptive evidence found while searching the
vehicle and not as a result of compelling the appellant to incriminate himself.
R. v. Chang
2003 ABCA 293
Russell J.A.;
Wittman and Smith
JJ.A. (con).
*Final Level
Property - vehicle
search
- A mall security guard seized
ecstacy pills from the accused
who was in car in a mall
parking lot.
- Charter, ss. 7, 8, 10,
24(2);
- Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, s. 5(2).
• NOTE - The Charter doesn’t apply in
this case because the security guard and
the accused were both private citizens
(this was also seen in R. v. Lunn, where
the doctor wasn’t an agent of the state).
- (1) Had the Charter applied, would there
have been a violation of s. 8?
• NO
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
- Ref. to Wilson, Caslake, and Stillman.
- (1) Neither a search nor a seizure is unlawful if conducted with the consent of the
accused.
• The search and seizure were conducted in an automobile in the parking lot of a mall
where one might have a reduced expectation of privacy:
• There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of things that are in plain
view.
- (2) Given the non-conscriptive nature of the evidence, the minor breach and the
gravity of the charge, the administration of justice would not be brought into disrepute
by admitting the evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.
- Ref. to Plant (drug charges were serious and the exclusion of the evidence would
bring the justice system into disrepute)
- Ref to Edwards (the onus of proving that a search is unreasonable lies with the
21