Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...
Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...
Complete Cases Chart - Supreme Court of Canada - On the Identity ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case Name (<strong>Court</strong>)<br />
(Judge)<br />
Location/Method <strong>of</strong> Search Relevant Statutes Issues/Holdings<br />
- (1) whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> search violates s. 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>C<strong>Chart</strong>er? - Y/N<br />
- (2) whe<strong>the</strong>r to exclude evidence by s. 24(2)? – Y/N<br />
Reasoning<br />
- (1) relevant to s.8 + CASES (Kokesch, Plant, Hunter, Tessling, Edwards)<br />
- (2) relevant to 24(2) + CASES (Collins)<br />
• Final Level<br />
(Leave to appeal<br />
dismissed by<br />
SCC)<br />
<strong>Identity</strong> – Records<br />
R. v. Z. (S. M.)<br />
1998 MBCA 18<br />
Philip J.A.; Kr<strong>of</strong>t and<br />
Lyon JJ.A. (con).<br />
*Final Level<br />
-A Vice Principal searched a<br />
high school student’s locker<br />
and seized drugs.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• NO<br />
- (1) A student has a significantly diminished reasonable expectation in <strong>the</strong> school<br />
environment, particularly with respect to a locker that has been provided by <strong>the</strong><br />
school, is shared with ano<strong>the</strong>r student and has <strong>the</strong> combination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lock recorded<br />
by <strong>the</strong> school’s administration (which is at <strong>the</strong> lower end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
privacy scale in <strong>the</strong> school). Additionally, <strong>the</strong> Vice Principal had valid reasons for<br />
wanting to search <strong>the</strong> locker.<br />
Property search –<br />
School Locker<br />
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose <strong>of</strong> s.8).<br />
NB COURT OF APPEAL<br />
Mitchell v. R.<br />
2005 NBCA 104<br />
Robertson J.A.;<br />
Deschênes J.A. (con);<br />
Richard J.A. (dis).<br />
* Final Level<br />
Vehicle Search<br />
- Police searched <strong>the</strong><br />
accused’s car and seized drugs<br />
found hidden behind <strong>the</strong> gas<br />
cap.<br />
- The car was seized and<br />
detained after <strong>the</strong> accused was<br />
arrested for obstruction <strong>of</strong><br />
justice.<br />
- <strong>Chart</strong>er, s.8. - (1) Did <strong>the</strong> search and seizure violate s.8?<br />
• YES<br />
- (2) Should <strong>the</strong> evidence be excluded?<br />
• YES<br />
- (1) A search that is incidental to an arrest can only be made with respect to <strong>the</strong><br />
purpose for <strong>the</strong> arrest.<br />
- (2) The accused must demonstrate on <strong>the</strong> balance <strong>of</strong> probabilities that admitting <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence would bring to <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> justice into disrepute.<br />
• Factors (following Collins): “(1) determine whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence would impact on <strong>the</strong> fairness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial; (2) assess <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> breach; and (3) determine whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> justice system’s repute would be<br />
served by <strong>the</strong> admission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence ra<strong>the</strong>r than its exclusion.” (para. 20).<br />
• Here evidence not conscripted, <strong>the</strong>refore trial fairness not affected.<br />
• Factors to consider when considering seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> breach: “(1) was <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er breach serious or <strong>of</strong> a technical nature?; (2) did it occur in<br />
circumstances <strong>of</strong> urgency or necessity?; (3) was <strong>the</strong> search obtrusive in nature?;<br />
(4) did <strong>the</strong> accused have a heightened expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy with respect to <strong>the</strong><br />
area searched?; (5) was <strong>the</strong> warrantless search conducted in circumstances<br />
where <strong>the</strong> police had reasonable and probable grounds; (6) could <strong>the</strong> evidence<br />
have been obtained by o<strong>the</strong>r investigatory techniques that did not breach <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Chart</strong>er?; and (7) did <strong>the</strong> police act in good faith?” (para. 21)<br />
-While <strong>the</strong>re is a lesser expectation <strong>of</strong> privacy in a car than in a dwelling or an<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice, <strong>the</strong>re was no pressing need to search <strong>the</strong> car without a warrant and <strong>the</strong> car<br />
was in <strong>the</strong> custody and control <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> police.<br />
50