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)
FLIR Searches) –
R. v. Krist
[1995] B.C.J. No.
1606
Rowles J.A.;
Hollinrake and Prowse
JJ.A. (con).
*Final Level
Property search-
Home – garbage/
perimeter search
Fieldhouse v. British
Columbia
[1995] B.C.J. No. 975
Gibbs, J.A.;
Hollinrake and
Lambert JJ.A. (con).
*Final Level
Identity/Search of
Person
(Urinalysis Program)
R. v. Seney
[1994] B.C.J. No.
1638
being diverted.
- Police also engaged in FLIR
to take aerial heat
photographs of the dwelling
- Hutchings challenged the
validity of the search warrant
for the barn.
- After receiving information
about a marijuana growing
operation in the appellant's
home, police went to the
appellant's residence where
they noticed 3 garbage bags
on the side of the road.
- They seized 2 bags without
a warrant and, upon searching
them, found: four small
marijuana plants, remnants of
some paraphernalia indicative
of a marijuana grow op, and a
bank account statement in the
appellant’s name.
- Police got a search warrant
based on contents of the bags.
- Fieldhouse claims that
section 54(b) of the
Corrections and Conditional
Release Act and sections 60
and 63 of the Corrections and
Conditional Release
Regulations are contrary to
sections 7, 8, 12 and 15 of the
Charter.
- The impugned sections
authorized a mandatory
urinalysis program.
- In search of signs of drug
cultivation, police conducted
a perimeter search of the
accused’s home without a
- Charter, s. 8. - (1) Was the police’s search and seizure of
the accused’s garbage a violation of s. 8?
- Charter, ss. 7, 8, 12, 15,
24;
- Constitution Act, 1982, s.
52(1);
- Corrections and
Conditional Release Act,
S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 2, 3, 4,
46, 54(b);
- Corrections and
Conditional Release
Regulations SOR/92-620,
ss. 60, 63, 66.
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2);
- Narcotic Control Act, s.
6.
• NO
(1) Do these sections contravene s. 8 of the
Charter?
• NO
- (1) Did the unlawful perimeter search violate
s. 8 of the Charter?
• YES
emenating from home).
- Ref. to Edwards (totality of circumstances).
- (1) Putting material in the garbage amounts to abandoning it. It signifies that the
material was no longer something of value or importance to the person disposing of
it and that there was no reason or need to retain it (similar to DMF case).
• Once property is abandoned, there is no longer a reasonable expectation of
privacy in respect of it.
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8; only protects a reasonable expectation of privacy).
- Ref. to Dyment.
- (1) Given the nature and extent of drug abuse in prisons, the appellants have no
greater reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to urinalysis than someone else
would, in another context, in regard to a frisk search.
- The impugned regulations promote security and safety.
- Given the limited privacy interest and minimal intrusion, the law was reasonable,
as were the provisions to carry it out.
- Ref. to Kokesch (3 Kokesh tests for determining whether a search is
reasonable are:
1.Is the search authorized by law?
2.Is the law reasonable?
3.Is the manner of carrying out the search reasonable?)
- (1) The officer in charge did not have the required subjective belief that there were
grounds upon which a search warrant could be obtained before the perimeter search
was undertaken.
- The officer had acted in good faith. There were reasonable grounds for a warrant
36