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