Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...
Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...
Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
1342<br />
Ryan J.A.; Esson and<br />
MacKenzie JJ.A. (con)<br />
* Final Level<br />
Surveillance (webtap)<br />
Procedural Fairness<br />
pornography for <strong>the</strong> purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> distribution and sale.<br />
- There were erroneous<br />
paragraphs in <strong>the</strong> information<br />
presented to obtain <strong>the</strong> search<br />
warrant for <strong>the</strong> accused’s<br />
computer hardware.<br />
- As a result, <strong>the</strong> trial judge<br />
had no choice but to quash<br />
<strong>the</strong> warrant, as <strong>the</strong> essential<br />
evidence had been excised<br />
from <strong>the</strong> material.<br />
487.1(4)(a);<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2).<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- The warrant was also faulty because <strong>of</strong> an amendment made by <strong>the</strong> judicial justice<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> peace<br />
- The <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> possessing child pornography for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> distribution or sale<br />
was very serious because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> personal and societal harm flowing from <strong>the</strong> sexual<br />
exploitation <strong>of</strong> children.<br />
- (2) Good faith connotes an honest and reasonably held belief.<br />
- If a belief is honest, but not reasonably held, it cannot be in good faith, but it does<br />
not follow that it is necessarily in bad faith.<br />
- Ref. to Kokosch (police must act in good faith; good faith" is a state <strong>of</strong> mind, an<br />
honestly held belief”; to be held in good faith a belief must be reasonably based.<br />
- - Ref. to Collins<br />
Young et al v.<br />
Saanich Police<br />
Department et al<br />
2004 BCCA 224<br />
Huddart J.A;<br />
Finch and Lowery<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level (Leave<br />
to appeal dismissed<br />
by SCC)<br />
Home Search –<br />
perimeter search<br />
- The petitioners resided in a<br />
housing complex where <strong>the</strong>y<br />
were found by <strong>the</strong> police to<br />
be growing and using<br />
marijuana.<br />
- The police had interviewed<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r tenants and obtained<br />
information.<br />
- The landlord evicted <strong>the</strong><br />
petitioners because <strong>of</strong><br />
complaints from o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
tenants.<br />
- The petitioners challenged<br />
<strong>the</strong> eviction on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> s.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er s. 7, s. 8, 15 s.<br />
24(1), s. 32;<br />
- Constitutional Question<br />
Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68;<br />
- Controlled Drugs and<br />
Substances Act, S.C. 1996,<br />
c. 19, s. 4(1), s. 7 , s. 56;<br />
- Residential Tenancy Act,<br />
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 406, s.<br />
36(1).<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> police violate <strong>the</strong> petitioners’ s. 8<br />
rights?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) The police did not undertake a search and seizure but ra<strong>the</strong>r asked <strong>the</strong> tenant<br />
questions to which <strong>the</strong> tenants gave answers freely.<br />
- The police didn’t obtain material evidence, <strong>the</strong>y only obtained information from<br />
<strong>the</strong> tenants.<br />
- The analysis is similar to that in R v. Lunn.<br />
- Ref. to Evans<br />
24