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)
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