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. Tran
[2001] 149 O.A.C. 120
Borins J.A.; Weilder
and Austin JJ.A. (con).
* no history
Search of Person –
Blood Sample
R. v. Inco Ltd.
[2001] 146 O.A.C. 66
McMurtry C.J.O.;
Laskin J.A. and Blair
R.S.J. (con).
* final level – SCC
refused leave to
appeal
- Following an accident, the
accused was taken to hospital
where he consented to
providing blood samples for
medical purposes but not for
a criminal investigation.
- Police obtained the samples
without a warrant.
- Employees were compelled
to submit to questioning and
to produce documents and
other material regarding their
employer’s polluting
practices.
- Criminal Code, ss.255(3),
(2) and (1);
- Charter, ss.7, 8, 11(b),(d),
24(2).
- Ontario Water Resources
Act, s. 15, 19(1), 20(2),
30(1) and (2);
- Provincial Offences Act,
s. 120;
- Charter, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b),
11(d).
- (1) Did the seizure violate s.8 of the Charter?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• YES
- Did the compulsory gathering of documents
infringe employees’ reasonable expectation of
privacy?
• Inco lack standing for a claim for relief
regarding the s. 8 argument.
• No ruling on s.8, no discussion of s.24(2).
- Ref. to Hunter v. Southam (“reasonableness” of reasonable expectation of
privacy; high reasonable expectation of privacy regarding bodily integrity).
- Ref. to Dyment (social value in retaining information about oneself; use of
information must conform with the purpose of collection).
- (1) There was no warrant to obtain a blood sample under s. 256(1) Criminal Code.
- The SCC has found that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists for hospital
patients undergoing treatment for injuries sustained in an automobile accident and
for blood analysis results, so long as the blood was collected for medical reasons
was results were not to be shared with non-medical personnel.
- (2) The blood samples were used for non-medical purposes without consent so the
appeal is allowed and the convictions for impaired driving are set aside.
- Ref. to Dyment (information about blood collected for medical reasons may not be
share with non-medical personnel without consent).
- In Comite Paritaire v. Potash, LaForest held that constitutional guarantee of s. 8
varies depending on whether a “search” or an “inspection” is at issue.
- The abuse of process appeal is allowed.
- Ref. to O’Connor.
Identity – Records
R. v. S. (G.) (R. v.
Sutherland)
[2001] 146 O.A.C. 53
Laskin J.A.;
Finlayson and
Labrosse JJ.A. (con).
*final level – SCC
refused leave to
appeal
Identity – Records
R. v. Adams
2001 CanLII 16024
- The accused was charged
with the sexual assault and
assault of his wife.
- Both the accused and his
wife were mentally
challenged persons.
- The wife had gone to a
support worker for help and
counselling.
- The accused wanted access
to the counselling records.
- The accused was arrested in
the laundry room of a
- Criminal Code, ss. 761
and s.718.2(e).
- Charter, ss. 7 and 12.
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2);
- Criminal Code, ss. 529,
- Appeal against convictions and sentence is
dismissed.
- No discussion of s.8 or s.24(2).
- (1) Did the search and seizure violate s. 8 of
the Charter?
- A person may have a privacy interest in a record though it is not made for a
therapeutic purpose and even if it is in the Crown’s possession.
- The appellant’s argument turns on the adequacy or the allocation of resources
within the federal correctional system. The court is without adequate record to
decide this constitutional question, so there is no ground for the appeal.
- (1) The accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the laundry room of the
house where he was staying even if he wasn’t the owner of the house.
64