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)
R. v. Wilcox
2001 NSCA 45
Cromwell J.A.; Flinn
and Oland JJ.A. (con).
* final level
Identity – Records
Canadian
Broadcasting
Corporation v.
Batiot
1997 CanLII 9853 (NS
C.A.)
Bateman J.A.; Roscoe
and Freeman JJ.A.
(con).
* Final level (leave to
appeal dismissed by
SCC)
- The accused worked at a
fishery and sold more than his
quota of snowcrab, contrary to
the Fisheries Act.
- The fishery’s books were
seized without warrant by the
Crown.
- The CBC objects to
subpoenas which order
journalists to give evidence at
a preliminary enquiry and to
produce notes, records of
communications, video and
audio tapes made during the
development of a program for
the 5 th Estate.
- Charter, ss. 7, 8, 11(c),
11(d), 24(2);
- Criminal Code, ss. 830,
830(1), 830(1)(a),
830(1)(b), 830(1) (c), 834,
834(1), 834(1)(b);
- Fisheries Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. F-14, s. 49,
49(1), 49.1(2), 49.1(2).
- (1) Did seizing the books without a warrant
violate s. 8?
• NO
- Charter, s.7 and s.8. - (1) Did the records enjoy a reasonable
expectation of privacy under s.7 of the
Charter?
• NO
- (1) The seizure was properly conducted under the Fisheries Act and was therefore
not unreasonable.
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy; core biographical information).
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8; s. 8 only protects reasonable expectation of
privacy).
- (1) The records were made during the development of a program which was
broadcast. Neither the journalists not the complainants (who were the subject of the
records) enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy in these records. The records
and communications did not occur in the context of a confidential relationship.
- Ref. to Plant (contextual approach; core biographical information).
- Ref. to Hunter (balancing state interest and individual privacy).
Surveillance -
wiretap
R. v. Spidell
1996 CanLII 5277 (NS
C.A.)
Roscoe J.A.; Clarke
and Matthews JJ.A.
(con) .
* Final Level (leave
to appeal dismissed
by SCC)
Identity – Records
R. v. Fitt
[1995] N.S.J. No. 83
- A physician contacted police
to report that the accused had
told him that he had been
involved in a traffic accident,
had been drinking and that this
occurred within the past hour.
- Police went to the hospital
and demanded that the
accused provide a blood
sample.
-The accused refused and was
charged with refusal.
- Video gambling machines
were kept in a small taxi
- Charter, s.8. - (1) Was there a violation of s.8?
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2);
- Criminal Code, s.
• NO
- (1) Did the presence of the police violate the
accused’s reasonable expectation of privacy?
- (1) Although the physician may have breached his duty of confidentiality to the
patient:
• it was not demonstrated that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in
the information voluntarily provided by the doctor to the police. The physician
was not acting at the request of, or under the direction of, the police;
• information provided to the police was not of a private, intimate nature of the
sort protected by s.8;
- Ref. to Plant (informational privacy; core biographical information).
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8; protection of people and not places).
- (1) The search was not unreasonable as there was no expectation of privacy from
intrusion by the police.
54