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. A. M.
[2006] CarswellOnt
2579
Armstrong J.A.;
Goudge and Blair
JJ.A. (con).
* final level
Surveillance - Sniffer
Dog
- Police used a “sniffer” dog
to search a high school
student’s backback on school
property. The principal and
staff were unaware of the
search.
- Youth Criminal Justice
Act;
- Charter, ss.8 and 24(2).
- (1) Did the search violate s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded
pursuant to s.24(2)?
• YES
- (1) The Court refered to Hunter v. Southam: a warrantless search is prima facie
unreasonable.
- The dog was found to be a physical extension of the handler (they were
directly/immediately connected).
- The Court also refered to Tessling and does not conclude that a dog sniff is not a
search. The use of a sniffer dog is distinguished from the use of FLIR imaging).
- A student’s backpack should be afforded the same respect as an adult’s briefcase
and there is therefore a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the contents
(see R. v. Mohamed).
- The Court affirmed the trial judge’s decision (Collins test).
- (2) This constituted a serious breach. “[T]his was a warrantless, random search
with the entire school body held in detention. It was not authorized by either the
criminal law or the Education Act and subsidiary school policies. The breach was
serious. As the trial judge said: To admit the evidence is effectively to strip A.M.
and any other student in a similar situation of the right to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure.”
R. v. Clarke
[2005] CarswellOnt
1806
Sharpe J.A.; Simmons
and Laforme JJ.A.
(con).
*final level – SCC
refused leave to
appeal
- Police followed a drunk
driving suspect into the
private underground parking
lot of his apartment building.
-They then conducted a
search based on the smell of
alcohol on the accused’s
breath.
- Charter, s.8. - (1) Did the search violate s.8?
• NO
- (2) Should the breathalyser evidence be
excluded?
• NO
.
- (1) If police are entitled to stop a suspect’s vehicle on the street, they are entitled to
pursue the suspect into his garage. One does not have the same reasonable
expectation of privacy in one’s parking garage as in one’s dwelling.
- This reverses the finding of the lower court with regard to both the s.8 violation
and exclusion.
- (2) The breathalyser evidence is admissible.
Identity – Records
R. v. Byfield
[2005] CanLII 1486
(ON C.A.)
Rosenberg J.A.;
Weiler J.A. and Pardu
J. (con).
*final level
- Police observed the accused
letting a prostitute into his
vehicle.
- They then searched him and
found drugs.
- Charter, ss.8, 9, 24(2). - (1) Did the search violate s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• YES
- (1) The search went beyond what was required to mitigate the officer’s safety
concerns.
- Iindividuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their
pockets.
- (2) The Court reverses the trial judge’s decision (errors: trial judge lacked benefit
of SCC decision in Mann with regard to reasonable expectation of privacy in
pockets), although it found that the admission of evidence would not affect the
fairness of the trial.
57