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)
Surveillance –
Wiretap (3 rd party)
R. v. A.K.1
[2005] CanLII 11389
(ON C.A.)
Moldaver, Gillese,
Juriansz JJ.A.
* no history
Identity – Records
R. v. O'Sullivan
[2005] CarswellOnt
2477
Weiler, Simmons,
Gillese JJ.A.
* no history
Surveillance –
Wiretap
- Charges of first degree
murder were stayed because
the accused had not been
tried within a reasonable
period of time, as required by
s.11(b) of the Charter.
-The Crown requested the
production of 17 autopsy files
from the Coroner’s Office.
- It was argued that third
party privacy interests ought
to be considered.
- Police searched an
apartment frequented, but not
owned by, the appellant.
-The appellant had invited
police in.
- Privacy Act, s. 2(1). - The trial judge was correct in finding that
the respondents’ right to be tried within a
reasonable time had been breached. Appeal
dismissed.
- Charter (referred to
generally).
- NO discussion of s.8 or s.24(2).
- Crown possession/control (of records) is not to be equated with a violation of
reasonable expectation of privacy (see R. v. Mills).
- NO direct discussion of s.8 or s.24(2) - (1) The appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment, even
though he sometimes stays overnight.
- The fact that the police were invited in negates a claim based on reasonable
expectation of privacy.
R. v. Campanella
[2005] 196 O.A.C. 188
Rosenberg J.A.;
Simmons and Lang
JJ.A. (con).
* no history
Search of Person –
Body
- The accused’s purse was
searched at a security
screening point at the
entrance to a provincial
courthouse.
- Signs at the public entrances
inform that visitors will be
searched and warn of the
ramifications of possessing
illegal articles.
-The accused had been
through the screening process
on previous occasions.
- The purse was voluntarily
submitted for a manual
- Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, s. 4(1);
- Public Works Protection
Act, s. 3(b);
- Police Services Act, s.
137;
- Charter, s. 8.
- (1) Did the search violate s.8 of the Charter?
• NO
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO (although there was no ruling on
s.24(2), there was a discussion of
exclusion generally, favouring admitting
the evidence).
- (1) When entering prominent public buildings there is a reasonable expectation of
being searched and the appellant was familiar with procedure.
- There was no evidence that the search was conducted in an unreasonable manner,
or for a purpose unrelated to courthouse security.
- (2) In balancing the interests, note that notice was given on a sign at entrance
which said that one can refuse to be searched and leave. Alternately, one can transfer
non-metallic objects from searchable hand-baggage to a pocket that will not be
searched.
- Ref. to Hunter v Southam (“reasonableness” to assess constitutionality).
59