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)
(ON C.A.)
Carthy J.A.; Charron
and McCombs JJ.A.
(con)
* final level
rooming house.
- Police entered without a
warrant and found drugs on
him.
529.3.
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• YES
- The police therefore needed a warrant to validly enter the house.
- Ref. to Mellenthin
Home search –
(without warrant)
R. v. Sutherland
[2000] 139 O.A.C. 53
Carthy J.A.; Abella
and Feldman JJ.A.
(con).
* no history
Property – Home
(Perimeter search)
R. v. Mulligan
2000 CanLII 5625
(ON C.A.)
Sharpe J.A.; Laskin
and Feldman JJ.A.
(con).
* final level
Vehicle Search
R.v. B.P.
[2000] 137 O.A.C. 66
Weiler, Rosenberg,
Sharpe, JJ.A.
* no history
Prison
R. v. Lauda
[1999] 121 O.A.C. 365
- Police searched the
accused’s apartment at night.
-The warrant had been issued
based on false information.
-He was believed to have
stolen watches and rings.
- The accused was drunk in
his truck on his own property
when police found him and
arrested him for drunk
driving.
- The accused resisted arrest.
-The accused was charged
with a number of sexual
assaults that occured over
decades.
- He wanted the Children and
Family Services records of
one of the complainants
because it supports his claim
of innocence.
- The police entered an
unused private cornfield,
- Criminal Code, ss. 488
and 487 (warrant by day);
- Charter, ss. 8 and 24(2).
- Charter, ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b),
24(2).
- Criminal Code, ss.
686(1)(b)(iii); 761;
718.2(e); 278.3.
- Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, s. 29;
- (1) Did the search violate s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded under
s.24(2)?
• YES
- (1) Was the vehicle search an arbitrary
detainment and did it violate the accused’s
reasonable expectation of privacy?
• NO
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
- (1) Would requiring production violate the
complainant’s privacy rights?
• NO
-No discussion of s.8 or s.24(2).
- (1) The Criminal Code imposes special requirements when a search by night is
contemplated. No additional justification for a night search exists here: there is
likely no time sensitivity regarding recovery of the goods. Based on a “totality of the
circumstances”, the warrant is invalid.
- (2) The search of a dwelling house must be undertaken with responsibility
appropriate to a place where the highest degree of privacy is expected.
- Applied Collins.
- (1) It is plainly in the interests of a property owner or occupant that the police
investigate suspected crimes being committed against the owner or occupant.
- Before the search the police arrested the accused with just cause (drunk driving)
and the accused therefore had lowered reasonable expectation of privacy when he
was searched.
- Ref. to Kokesch (police must act in good faith).
- Ref. Edwards (totality of circumstances test).
- Ref. Hunter (purpose of s. 8).
- The appeal from the conviction was allowed and a new trial ordered.
- At the new trial, the appellant may be able to argue that there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy in the information contained in the records.
- (1) Did the search and seizure violate s.8? - (1) One must consider steps taken to protect the property against unwelcome
intrusion.
65