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 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
R. v. Khuc, Bui,<br />
Pham and Tran<br />
2000 BCCA 20<br />
McEachern C.J.B.C.;<br />
Finch and Ryan JJ.A.<br />
(con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property search-<br />
Home – not owner<br />
R. v. Novak<br />
2000 BCCA 257<br />
Braidwood J.A.;<br />
Cumming and Finch<br />
JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
Property search-<br />
Home<br />
(Hydro/Electrical<br />
Searches) –<br />
R. v. Bohn<br />
2000 BCCA 239<br />
Ryan J.A.; Hollinrake<br />
and Huddart JJ.A.<br />
- An undercover cop<br />
purchased drugs on several<br />
occasions.<br />
- The seller’s car was seen to<br />
enter and exit a particular<br />
address.<br />
- A search warrant was<br />
granted for that address.<br />
- The police seized a number<br />
<strong>of</strong> items, including children's<br />
clo<strong>the</strong>s, drug paraphernalia,<br />
cash, documents, and 722<br />
grams <strong>of</strong> cocaine.<br />
- The accused claimed that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y had a reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with<br />
respect to <strong>the</strong> house because<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were babysitting.<br />
- Novak leased a unit in a<br />
warehouse under a false<br />
identity.<br />
- Hydro records were in a<br />
third person's name.<br />
- The police suspected a drug<br />
cultivating operation and<br />
obtained hydro records for<br />
<strong>the</strong> unit showing hydro<br />
consumption for <strong>the</strong> unit was<br />
higher than for o<strong>the</strong>r units.<br />
- The unit also emitted a<br />
strong smell <strong>of</strong> marijuana.<br />
- Police <strong>the</strong>n got a search<br />
warrant and uncovered drugs.<br />
- The police received a tip<br />
that <strong>the</strong> accused had a hydro<br />
bypass and a marijuana grow<br />
operation in his residence.<br />
- After getting a warrant to<br />
- Criminal Code, s.<br />
186(1)(b)(iii).<br />
• <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 24(2).<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, ss. 8, 10(b),<br />
24(2);<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 40;<br />
- Criminal Code, s. 29(1);<br />
- Narcotic Control Act.<br />
- (1)Was <strong>the</strong>re a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> house searched by<br />
<strong>the</strong> police?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did <strong>the</strong> way <strong>the</strong> search warrants were<br />
obtained violate s. 8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) Did failing to produce a copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
warrant (and never<strong>the</strong>less searching <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s home) violate s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Chart</strong>er?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) The accused did not assert possession or control <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> property, <strong>the</strong>y did not<br />
claim ownership, and <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir historical use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> premises.<br />
• That <strong>the</strong>y were babysitting was only an assertion unsupported by any evidence.<br />
• There was no evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir ability to regulate access.<br />
- Ref. to Edwards (facts compared and distinguished; totality <strong>of</strong> circumstances).<br />
- (1) There was no evidence that Novak had any expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect<br />
to <strong>the</strong> hydro records seized or with respect to <strong>the</strong> premises.<br />
- He didn’t own <strong>the</strong> building, didn’t live <strong>the</strong>re, <strong>the</strong>re was no evidence he was <strong>the</strong><br />
lessee or responsible for <strong>the</strong> hydro.<br />
- (2) There was no violation <strong>of</strong> s. 8 because <strong>the</strong> accused had no reasonable<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong> premises he didn’t own or occupy.<br />
Therefore – <strong>the</strong> evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).<br />
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical info; personal and intimate details <strong>of</strong> lifestyle)<br />
- Ref to Edwards (Two distinct questions must be answered in any s. 8 challenge:<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> accused had a reasonable expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy and whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search<br />
was an unreasonable intrusion on that right to privacy).<br />
- (1) Failure to produce <strong>the</strong> warrant on request without good reason was a significant<br />
breach.<br />
• It deprived <strong>the</strong> accused <strong>of</strong> seeing <strong>the</strong> legal authority on which <strong>the</strong> invasion <strong>of</strong> his<br />
privacy was based.<br />
• The breach was serious because, in conjunction with <strong>the</strong> privacy breach, it<br />
30