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)
L’Heureux-Dubé,
Gonthier,
Iacobucci, Major,
Bastarache, Binnie,
and Arbour JJ. (con.)
Surveillance
Wiretap/
Procedural Fairness
R. v. Caslake
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 51,
Lamer J with Cory,
McLachlin and
Major (con);
Bastarache,
L’Heureux-Dubé
and Gonthier JJ.
(dis)
had been gathered through
wiretapping.
- An officer admitted that
parts of the affidavit did not
correctly identify one of his
sources. The officer also
admitted that he had known
about this error for several
weeks before the trial but
didn’t confess to the mistake.
- After arresting a suspect for
possession of illegal narcotics,
an officer conducted a
warrantless search of the
accused’s car and found more
drugs.
- NOTE - In a lot of cases where there was a
problem with the application for the wiretap
authorization it seems as though the courts
are finding in favour of the state because of
the negative social impact of finding for the
accused –
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Was the search of the suspect’s car in
violation of s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded under s
24(2)?
• NO
reliable, reasonably believable evidence upon which an authorization could be
based.
- Although the officer had not disclosed a minor drafting mistake, the substance of
the information in the affidavit was not untruthful.
-The application was allowed – the error wasn’t a violation of s. 8 of the Charter
- Ref. to Hunter (for there to be a search/seizure there must be reasonable grounds
to believe that an offence has been committed)
- Ref. to Plant (misstatements do not affect the validity of the warrant)
- (1) Unwarranted searches are presumed unreasonable and the Crown failed to
justify the search.
- (2) The evidence was not excluded as the breach was minor and excluding the
evidence would put justice into disrepute.
- Ref. to Hunter (starting point of s. 8 analysis; purpose of s.8 and what it protects)
Property Search –
Vehicle
(warrantless)
Schreiber v. Canada
(Attorney General)
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 841
L'Heureux-Dubé J,
with McLachlin,
Bastarache, Binnie and
Lamer JJ. (con);
Iacobucci and
Gonthier JJ. (dis).
- Without judicial
authorization, the Crown
requested information from the
Swiss government about the
accused’s Swiss bank account.
- Charter, ss. 7, 8, 24(1),
32(1).
- (1) Did the Crown’s request to the Swiss
government for information about an account
held in that country violate the accused’s s.8
rights?
• NO
- (1) Requesting information didn’t violate the Charter
- Swiss government actions are not Charter actionable
- Lamer (con): A search carried out in a foreign country under foreign laws doesn’t
violate the reasonable expectation of privacy; there was no evidence that the seizure
was illegal under Swiss law.
- Ref. to Plant (balancing of the societal interests in protecting individual dignity,
integrity and autonomy against the need for effective law enforcement)
- Ref. to Edwards (totality of circumstances)
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects the reasonable expectation of privacy)
Warrantless request
by Crown for
Personal Info about
foreign bank
accounts of the
6