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. Blais
[2004] 181 O.A.C. 81
Rosenberg J.A.;
Weiler and Borins
JJ.A. (con).
* final level
Search of Person –
Property
R. v. Mohamad
[2004] 181 O.A.C. 201
Cronk J.A; Laskin
and Moldaver JJ.A.
(con).
* final level
Property – Vehicle
(Personal Property
inside)
R. v. Major
[2004] 188 O.A.C. 159
Rosenberg J.A.;
Laskin and Aitkin
JJ.A. (con).
* final level - SCC
leave to appeal
dismissed
search because it would have
set off the metal detector.
- A small quantity of
marijuana was found and the
accused was arrested.
- Following arrest and
incarceration, Blais’ personal
belongings were seized.
- The belongings were
searched twice by detectives.
- A key that was among the
possessions was later seized
under warrant.
- A suspicious vehicle at
customs led to the search of
another vehicle.
-The other vehicle, unlocked
and stolen, contained an
unlocked briefcase nd this
was searched.
- Heroin and marijuana were
found in a “family visit unit”
trailer within a penitentiary.
-The seizure led to a charge
of possession with intent to
traffic.
- Correctional Services
provide the trailers to afford
privacy).
- Criminal Code, s. 186(2);
- Charter, ss.8 and 24(2).
- Criminal Code, ss.
4(3)(b); 738(1)(a);
- Charter, ss.8 and 24(2).
- Corrections and
Constitutional Release Act,
S.C. 1992, c. 20 s. 52, 58;
- Charter, ss. 7, 8, 24(2).
- (1) Did the search violate s.8 of the Charter?
• NO
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
- (1) Did the search violate s.8?
• NO
- (2) No discussion of s.24(2).
- (1) Did the search and seizure violate s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded per
s.24(2)?
• NO
- (1) The search warrant was obtained appropriately. The appellant’s expectation of
privacy was that the state would preserve the goods and return them upon the
appellant’s release.
- One’s reasonable expectation of privacy is greatly reduced in belongings that have
been seized by police (see Grant).
- Ref. to Edwards (factors to consider for reasonable expectation of privacy).
- (2) – The search was conducted in good faith: the officer was attempting to comply
with the law.
- (1) There is as lesser expectation of privacy (of the physical person) in a car than in
one’s home/office (R. v. Caslake).
- Owners of briefcases generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
contents of their briefcases - even if the briefcase is stolen.
- Thus, the requirements for a valid search of the briefcase were met.
- Ref. to Hunter v Southam (purpose of s.8).
- Ref. to Edwards (“contextual analysis of the totality of the circumstances”).
- (1) Although there is a reduced expectation of privacy in a prison setting, there was
a subjective expectation of privacy in the units. They were locked, were for the
purpose of sleeping, and children were present. The subjective expectation was
judged objectively reasonable (see Conway v. A-G of Canada).
- The trial judge had considered the unit a “cell”, and privacy is therefore subject to
the terms of the prison’s legislation.
- (2) However, drug trafficking is a very serious offence and admitting the evidence
would not affect the fairness of the trial.
Prison – Surveillance
R. v. Serendip
Physiotherapy Clinic
- A physiotherapy clinic was
trying to defraud an insurance
- Criminal Code, s. 487;
- Charter, ss.7 and 8.
- Ref. to Edwards: (what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy” on “the
totality of the circumstances”).
- (1) Did the search and seizure violate s.8? - (1): Serious intrusions into privacy are justified if there are reasonable grounds that
the records sought will afford evidence about the commission of the offence.
60