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)
R. v. Wagner
[1994] B.C.J. No. 101
Hollinrake J.A.;
Taylor and Gibbs JJ.A.
(con).
* Final Level
Property – vehicle
(warrantless)
R. v. Olson
[1993] B.C.J. No.
2529
Gibbs J.A.; Corrothers
and Southin JJ.A.
(con).
* Final Level
envelope.
- The appellant lived with his
aunt in her trailer.
- The police suspected the
appellant of wrongdoing and
obtained the aunt's consent to
search the trailer without a
warrant.
- The police seized certain
items and the appellant was
charged with breaking and
entering and possession of
stolen property.
- Following his arrest, the
accused made calls while in
custody.
- These calls were intercepted
and recorded by the police.
- The accused argued that the
transfer to the RCMP of the
recordings was a seizure.
• NO
- Charter, ss. 8, 9, 24(2). - (1) Did obtaining only the aunt’s consent
and searching without the warrant violate s. 8
of the Charter?
- Charter, ss. 8, 24.;
- Criminal Code, s. 344.
• NO
- (1) Were the recordings unreasonably
seized?
• NO
otherwise would bring the justice system into disrepute.
- Admitting this evidence would not render the accused’s trial unfair.
- (1) Before the police commenced their search they had grounds to obtain a
warrant.
-In fact, police were in the process of obtaining a warrant and did not obtain it
because an officer at the trailer telephoned to advise that the aunt had consented to
the search.
- (1) All those within the detention centre were informed that no privacy attached to
communications made while in the centre.
- Once convicted and in detention, the reasonable expectation of privacy is low (first
said in R v. Stillman, also mentioned in North and Copan)
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 only protects a reasonable expectation of privacy).
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy; core biographical information).
Surveillance -
Wiretap (Prison)
inmate
R. v. Olson
[1993] B.C.J. No.
1344
Toy J.A.; Legg and
Rowles JJ.A. (con).
* Final Level
Surveillance -
Wiretap (prison
inmate)
R. v. Sandhu
[1993] B.C.J. No.
1279
- The appellant was convicted
of robbery based mainly on
telephone conversations
intercepted pursuant to
section 43 of the Correction
Centre rules and regulations.
-These calls were recorded
while the accused was
detained at the pre-trial
centre.
- Police searched the
accused’s bags at the airport
and found 2kg of cocaine.
- Charter, s. 8;
- Constitution Act, 1982, s.
52(1).
- Charter, ss. 8, 24, 24(2);
- Criminal Code, s. 495,
495(1)(a);
- (1) Did the use of this evidence violate s. 8
of the Charter?
• NO
- (1) Did the accused have a reasonable
expectation of privacy with respect to the bags
at the airport?
- (1) There were no exceptional circumstances justifying the application.
- The striking down of otherwise validly enacted legislation was a serious matter
which should have been raised in the proper forum so that evidence relevant to the
issue could be adduced and considered.
- (1) There was no evidence linking the accused with the bag or its contents as of the
date of seizure.
- Although the bag and its contents were found in the accused's apartment the
39