Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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) Arbour J., with McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ. (con); LeBel with L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier (dis in part) Personal Info - Privileged Info R. v. Jarvis [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757, Iacobucci and Major JJ. with McLachlin C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ. (con). - A Revenue Canada auditor requested records based on tip that the accused failed to report revenue from the sale of his wife’s art in 1990 and 1991 - Charter, ss. 7, 8, 24. - (1) Did the auditor’s request for financial information violate ss. 7 or 8 of the Charter? • NO - (1) The information was obtained pursuant to a valid warrant and was therefore legitimately available for use. - Ref. to Plant (core biographical information) - Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protecting reasonable expectation of privacy) Personal Info – Financial Records Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3 Arbour J. with McLachlin C.J. L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, and LeBel JJ. (con.) Identity/search of the - Ruby made a Privacy Act request for access to personal information held by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service CSIS. - CSIS refused to disclose any information, claiming Privacy Act exemptions for information obtained in confidence where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to be harmful to the conduct of international affairs - Charter, ss. 1, 2(b), 7, 8; and - Privacy Act, ss. 11, 12(1), 16(1), 16(2), 19, 21, 22(1), 22(3), 26, 28, 29, 34(2), 41, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52. - (1) Did the withholding of information violate s. 8 of the Charter? • NO - (1) The s. 8 analysis was combined with the s. 7 analysis. There was no violation of s. 7 and there was no infringement of principles of fundamental justice. Therefore, there was no violation of s. 8. - Ref. to Dyment for analysis 4
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) person – records or the defence of Canada R. v. Golden [2001] 3 S.C.R. 679 Iacobucci and Arbour JJ with Major, Binnie, and LeBel JJ. (con.); Bastarache and L’Heureux-Dubé JJ. (dis.) Identity/Search of Person (Body Searches) - Police observed the accused give a substances to two individuals in a shop in an area known for illegal drug trafficking. - Golden was arrested and, following his arrest, was found to have drugs lodged in his anus – but police couldn’t get it out. -Police then forced the accused to take the drugs out of his anus. - Charter, ss. 8, 24(1), 24(2) - Criminal Code, ss. 254(3)(a), 254(3) (b), 487, 487.04, 487.05, 487.06, 487.07, 487.08, 487.09 - Customs Act, s. 98 - (1) Was the behaviour of the police in forcing accused to remove the drugs from his body a violation of s. 8? • YES - (2) should the evidence be excluded? • NO - (1) Where the circumstances of a search require the seizure of material located in or near a body cavity, either the individual being searched should be given the opportunity to remove the material himself, or the advice and assistance of a trained medical professional should be sought to ensure the safe removal of the material. - Given that the purpose of s. 8 of the Charter is to protect individuals from unjustified state intrusions upon their privacy, it is necessary to have a means of preventing unjustified searches before they occur, rather then simply determining after the fact whether the search should have occurred. - (2) Although the second search of the accused (the forcible removal of the items from his buttocks) violated s. 8 of the Charter, the evidence was admissible pursuant to an analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter. Because the court is dealing with the drug trade, which affects society as a whole, not admitting the evidence would bring the justice system into disrepute Smith v. Canada (Attorney General) [2001] 3 S.C.R. 902 The Court (McLachlin C.J. and L'Heureux- Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ. Personal Information provided to one Gov’t Agency by the suspect used by another R. v. Araujo [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992 LeBel J. with McLachlin C.J., - The plaintiff left Canada while on Employment Insurance in violation of program requirements. At the border on his return he filled out a form for Canada Customs (CCRA). - That information was shared with the Canadian Unemployment Insurance Comission. - The accused were charged with numerous offences for their alleged involvement in a cocaine-trafficking ring. Most of the evidence against them - Charter, ss. 6(1), 8. - (1) Does CCRA’s practice of sharing information with the CUIC violate s.8 of the Charter? - Charter, s. 8; - Criminal Code, ss. 186, 186(1)(b), 676(1)(a). • No - (2) Does the accused have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information disclosed to the CCRA? • NO - (1) Did the use of wiretapping despite obtaining the warrant through incorrect sources violate the accused’s s. 8 rights? • NO - Ref. to Hunter (warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable; s. 8 protects a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy) - (1) The plaintiff’s privacy interest does not outweigh the CUIC goal of effective administration of the Employment Insurance program. - Ref. to Plant (core biographical information) - (1) Under s. 186(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, wiretapping was an appropriate investigative tool where other investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed. -The applicant for a wiretap had to establish that other procedures were unlikely to succeed. - The test for judicial review of a wiretap authorization was whether there was 5
Page 1 and 2: Case Name (Court) (Judge) Location/
Page 3: Case Name (Court) (Judge) Location/
Page 55 and 56:
Case Name (Court) (Judge) Location/
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
show all

Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?