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)
Prowse J.A.; Toy and
Southin JJ.A. (con).
* Final Level (Leave
to appeal dismissed
by SCC)
Property - vehicle
- The bag was sent by an
accomplice.
- Upon listening to a
conversation through an
apartment door, police feared
the destruction of evidence
and entered to arrest the
accused and accomplices.
- Narcotic Control Act, s.
10. • NO
- (2) Was there a violation of the accused’s
reasonable expectation of privacy when the
police stood at the door of apartment and
eavesdropped (ear to door)?
• YES
- (3) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
following day, the privacy interest which the accused asserted was a reasonable
expectation of privacy in his home and not with respect to the bag and its contents.
- The accused therefore did not have standing to challenge the admissibility of the
evidence obtained in the search and seizure of the bag at the airport.
- A person inside an apartment could have no reasonable expectation of privacy with
respect to conversations which could be overheard with the unaided human ear from
outside the apartment.
- The public has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home, which includes
the expectation that a person's conversations, carried on in a "normal" tone of voice,
will not be eavesdropped upon by police in the manner which occurred here:
someone using the hallway in a normal manner couldn’t have overheard the
conversation taking place in the accused's apartment.
- (2) The invasion of privacy in this case was not of the magnitude of the invasion of
privacy accompanying searches by means of electronic devices.
- Admitting the evidence would not deprive the accused of a fair trial.
- Police were acting in good faith and were in hot pursuit of the accused and his
accomplice.
- The evidence obtained as a result of the search should not be excluded here under
s. 24(2).
R. v. Melenchuk
[1993] B.C.J. No. 558
Gibbs J.A.;
Corrothers and Prowse
JJ.A. (con).
*Final Level
Identity/Search of
Person;
Procedural fairness
R. v. Dilling
[1993] B.C.J. No. 865
- The accused was charged
with, and convicted of,
counterfeiting U.S. money.
- He challenged the search
warrant based on alleged
deficiencies in the
information used to obtain it.
- The Provincial Court judge
found that none of the alleged
misstatements or half-truths
were intended to mislead the
issuing Justice of the Peace.
- The subject of the impugned
statements was trivial.
-The appellant was convicted
of bargaining in a public
- Charter, ss. 8, 24, 24(2).;
- Criminal Code, ss. 449,
450(b).
- Criminal Code, ss.
213(1)(c), 495, 495(1)(b),
- Did the search violate s. 8 of the Charter?
• NO
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
- (1) Did taking the appellant’s photograph
while he was detained violate his rights under
- Ref. to Kokesch (warrant obtained in breach of Charter not valid; police must act
in good faith when conducting search).
- Ref. to Hunter (s.8 protects reasonable expectation of privacy only).
- (1) Where there is no intent to mislead, the appellant must prove that the
misstatements or half-truths were so significant as to affect the information as a
whole in terms of rendering it misleading,which he was not able to do.
- (2) If there is deliberate deception in obtaining the warrant, it would be quashed
and the evidence obtained through execution of the warrant would likely be
excluded, but this was not the case here so the evidence should not be excluded.
- Thus, even accepting that there were misstatements, omissions and half-truths in
the information for the warrant, the evidence was at risk of exclusion under s. 24(2)
only if those shortcomings were in furtherance of a deliberate intent to mislead.
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries of perimeter search of residence; test to determine
whether search was unreasonable).
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects reasonable expectation of privacy).
- (1) The photographic record was a means of refreshing the recollection of the
undercover officer as to the identity of the person who communicated with her on
40