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)
(warrantless search)
8 of the Charter.
B.G. et al v.
H.M.T.Q. in Right of
B.C.
2004 BCCA 345
Finch C.J.B.C;
MacKenzie and Lowry
JJ.A. (con).
*Final Level
Identity/Search of
Person
(Info/identity)
- The plaintiff, BG, appealed
the variation of a publication
ban.
- BG had been an inmate at a
school for boys and a number
of former inmates sued the
school for sexual and
physical assault.
- An order was made banning
publication of the names of
the plaintiffs or of
information that would
identify them.
- Juvenile Delinquents Act;
- Young Offenders Act;
Youth Criminal Justice
Act.
- (1) Did the parties in this case have a
reasonable expectation of privacy with respect
to the information published under the partial
publication ban.
• YES
- (1) There was no language in the first publication ban to indicate that it was not
permanent.
• If the ban was to end, that should only happen after a full reconsideration of the
reasons for imposing it in the first place.
R. v. Shoker
2004 BCCA 643
Levine J.A.; Finch
J.A. (con); Hall J.A.
(dis)
*Final Level (Leave
to Appeal granted at
SCC)
Identity/Search of
Person
(Urine, Blood, and
breathalyser info)
R. v. Greaves
2004 BCCA 484
Lowry J.A.; Finch and
MacKenzie JJ.A. (con)
* Final Level (leave
to appeal refused by
SCC)
- The accused was charged
with sexual assault and break
and entering.
- Upon probationary release
he was told he had to give a
urine and blood sample and
breathalyser test upon
demand/request of a peace
officer or probation officer.
- The accused didn’t consent
to giving these bodily
samples.
- During an investigative
detention, a number of items
were seized from a suspect,
including a cigarette box
containing I.D. and a cell
phone with an address book.
- Charter, s. 8;
- Criminal Code, s.
487.056(3) s. 487.06(1)(c)
, s. 487.07(3) , s. 718 , s.
718.1 , s.732.1(3) s.
732.1(3)(a)-732.1(3)(h) s.
732.1(3)(c) s.732.1(3)(g) s.
732.1(3)(g.1) s.
732.1(3)(h), s. 737;
- DNA Identification Act.
- (1) Were these probation requirements a
violation of the accused’s reasonable
expectation of privacy in violation of s. 8?
• YES
- Charter s.8, s.9, s.24(2). (1) Were the accused’s s.8 rights violated?
• YES
(2) Should the evidence be excluded under
s.24(2)?
• NO
- (1) Since the appellant did not consent, the court found that it was necessary to
amend the probation order to delete the reference to providing samples from the
appellant's probation order.
• With respect to the condition requiring bodily samples, the court held that the
sentencing judge had jurisdiction to impose such a requirement, but it didn’t meet
the requirements of s. 8 of the Charter.
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8)
- Ref. to Collins
- (1) Following Mann (SCC), during an investigative detention police are permitted
to ‘pat-down’ a person for the purposes of protecting themselves or others.
• The items seized were subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy (items
containing personal information). [Note that there is no obligation to identify
oneself].
- (2) Test for exclusion: “the impact of the evidence on the fairness of the trial; the
seriousness of the violation; and the effect the admission of the evidence would have
25