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)
* no history
Vehicle search
R. c. Solomon
[1996] A.Q. no 2131,
110 C.C.C. (3d) 354
Gendreau, Baudouin
et Otis JJ.A.
* Affirmed at SCC
Identity/search of the
person - records
- Police went to her car where
they found and seized 314
bottles of imported alcohol –
an illegal amount.
- Police seized documents
from cell phone records and
intercepted phone
conversations.
• NO
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Did the seizure violate s.8?
• NO (trial judge said YES)
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
NO
- (1) It was the phone company and not the accused who had been targeted by the
search warrant and as a result, only the telephone company could attack it on
grounds of unreasonableness.
- The documents that were released to the police did not contain any biographical
information or any list of names.
- The interception and recording by the state of conversations from a cellular
telephone (which is considered private conversation) would never be valid unless
authorized.
- Ref. to Edwards (facts compared to Solomon; totality of circumstances).
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 of the Charter does not authorize a search and seizure, but rather
acts as a limitation on the powers of search and seizure set out in the Code).
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information; s. 8 protects integrity, dignity, and
autonomy of the individual).
- Ref. to Kokesch (boundaries of perimeter search).
SK COURT OF APPEAL
R. v. Bulmer
[2005] 269 Sask. R.
137
Jackson J.A.;
Sherstobitoff and Lane
JJ.A. (con).
* no history
Search of Person,
Property – Vehicle
- The accused’s vehicle was
missing its front licence plate
and was pulled over.
- The officer ran a CPIC
search and found an
outstanding warrant
pertaining to a seatbelt fine.
- The accused had a knife,
which the officer removed,
clipped onto his waistband.
- A pat-down search and a
search of the vehicle were
conducted without the officer
seeking consent.
-The odour of cannabis was
noted and upon searching the
trunk, a backpack of
marijuana was found.
- HighwayTraffic Act, s.
77(2) ;
- Charter, ss. 8 and 24(2).
- (1) Did the search violate s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• YES
- (1) The validity of a vehicle search depends on its having a valid purpose. There is
no automatic right to search.
- Police must secure evidence of the offence for which the accused is being arrested.
There is a lesser expectation of privacy in a car than in one’s home or office or on
one’s physical person (Caslake).
-Thus, the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and the
officer had no valid purpose in searching.
72