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)
• Final Level
(Leave to appeal
dismissed by
SCC)
Identity – Records
R. v. Z. (S. M.)
1998 MBCA 18
Philip J.A.; Kroft and
Lyon JJ.A. (con).
*Final Level
-A Vice Principal searched a
high school student’s locker
and seized drugs.
- Charter, s.8. - (1) Did the search and seizure violate s.8?
• NO
- (1) A student has a significantly diminished reasonable expectation in the school
environment, particularly with respect to a locker that has been provided by the
school, is shared with another student and has the combination of the lock recorded
by the school’s administration (which is at the lower end of the expectation of
privacy scale in the school). Additionally, the Vice Principal had valid reasons for
wanting to search the locker.
Property search –
School Locker
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s.8).
NB COURT OF APPEAL
Mitchell v. R.
2005 NBCA 104
Robertson J.A.;
Deschênes J.A. (con);
Richard J.A. (dis).
* Final Level
Vehicle Search
- Police searched the
accused’s car and seized drugs
found hidden behind the gas
cap.
- The car was seized and
detained after the accused was
arrested for obstruction of
justice.
- Charter, s.8. - (1) Did the search and seizure violate s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• YES
- (1) A search that is incidental to an arrest can only be made with respect to the
purpose for the arrest.
- (2) The accused must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that admitting the
evidence would bring to the administration of justice into disrepute.
• Factors (following Collins): “(1) determine whether the admission of the
evidence would impact on the fairness of the trial; (2) assess the seriousness of
the breach; and (3) determine whether the justice system’s repute would be
served by the admission of the evidence rather than its exclusion.” (para. 20).
• Here evidence not conscripted, therefore trial fairness not affected.
• Factors to consider when considering seriousness of the breach: “(1) was the
Charter breach serious or of a technical nature?; (2) did it occur in
circumstances of urgency or necessity?; (3) was the search obtrusive in nature?;
(4) did the accused have a heightened expectation of privacy with respect to the
area searched?; (5) was the warrantless search conducted in circumstances
where the police had reasonable and probable grounds; (6) could the evidence
have been obtained by other investigatory techniques that did not breach the
Charter?; and (7) did the police act in good faith?” (para. 21)
-While there is a lesser expectation of privacy in a car than in a dwelling or an
office, there was no pressing need to search the car without a warrant and the car
was in the custody and control of the police.
50