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)
Search of a person –
body search
on the reputation of the administration of justice: Collins, at 284-86; R. v. Stillman,
1997 CanLII 384 (S.C.C.), [1997] 69.”
• The s.8 violation was serious (searching pockets); however, this was mitigated in
the case of the cell phone by the existence of reasonable and probable grounds to
arrest (which would have led to a more extended search incidental to the arrest).
B. C. Teacher's
Federation v. School
District No. 39
2003 BCCA 100
Hall J.A.; Low J.A.
(con); Prowse J.A.
(dis)
*Final Level
Identity/Search of
Person – Accused’s
Info
R. v. Hyatt
2003 BCCA 27
Smith J.A.; Low and
Levine JJ.A. (con).
* Final Level
Property - vehicle
- BCTF challenged the
School Act on the basis of s.
8 of the Charter.
- A teacher began to behave
unusually, displaying an
inability to interact with other
staff and taking many sick
days, which led to student
complaints.
- In February 2000, she was
requested to undergo a
psychiatric examination
pursuant to section 92 of the
School Act and was advised
that failure to comply could
result in her termination.
- She refused to be assessed
and was terminated.
- The appellants and their
accomplice were charged
with armed robbery.
- The accomplice was the one
who testified, resulting in
convictions for the
appellants.
- It was acknowledged that
the accomplice's Charter
rights to counsel and against
unreasonable search and
seizure had been breached.
- Therefore,the appellants
argued that accomplice's
- Charter, ss. 1, 2(b), 6,
6(2)(b), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 24(2);
- Criminal Code, ss. 94(2),
193, 195.1(1)(c), 254(3);
School Act, s.92.
- Charter, ss. 8, 9, 10(b),
11(d), 24(1), 24(2);
- Criminal Code, ss. 91(2),
344(a), 351(2).
- (1) Was requiring the teacher to undergo
assessment a violation of s. 7 (security of the
person) or s. 8 of the Charter?
• NO
- There was no standing for the appellants to
bring an appeal.
- It was the accomplice who gave the
testimony.
- (1) Despite there being no standing, was
there still a breach of s. 8?
• NO
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy).
- Ref. to Kokesch (police acting in good faith).
- (1) There was no prejudice to the School District by permitting BCTF to argue
section 8 of the Charter.
• Neither section 7 nor 8 of the Charter applied to the circumstances of this case.
• The request to undergo a psychiatric examination did not fall within the
parameters of section 8 of the Charter as it was not a search or seizure.
- Ref to Kokesch (boundaries for perimeter search of residence; either seizure,
surveillance or search).
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8; s. 8 protects a reasonable expectation of privacy).
- (1) It was the accomplice's car and statement that were at issue.
• The trial judge did not err in determining that police had articulable cause to
search the vehicle.
• Neither the accomplice's testimony nor the physical evidence could have been
excluded under the Charter (need causal and temporal link to be excluded).
- (2) Although there was residual discretion to exclude accomplice’s evidence if
required for trial fairness, the accused had not demonstrated a causal link.
• Evidence will be excluded under s. 24(2) only where there exists a sufficiently
strong link between the Charter breach and the discovery of the evidence and
where causal and temporal connections are factors in the analysis.
26