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. Luc
[2004] 188 C.C.C.
(3d) 436
Bayda C.J.S.);
Sherstobitoff and Lane
JJ.A. (con).
* final level – SCC
refused leave to
appeal
Property Search –
Vehicle
R. v. Galloway
[2004] 187 C.C.C.
(3d) 305
Jackson J.A., Bayda
C.J.S., Tallis J.A.
* final level –
- The accused was then
arrested for possession for the
purposes of trafficking in
marijuana.
- Police conducted a
warrantless search of a
vehicle and its contents,
including luggage of which
the driver and passenger
disavowed ownership.
- Police searched a vehicle
involved in a fatal accident.
- Fisheries Act;
- Summary Offences
Procedure Act, s. 4(4.2)
(reasonable expectation of
privacy reference in
relation to s. 487.01
Criminal Code);
- Charter, ss. 8, 9, 24(2).
- Criminal Code, ss. 249(4)
and (3), 255(3) and (2),
252(1); s. 487.051(1)(b);
686(1)(a)(i);
- Charter, ss.8 and 24(2).
- (1) Did the search violate s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
- (1) Did the search violate s.8?
• YES
- (2) Should the evidence be excluded?
• NO
- (1) The passenger had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the
vehicle but not its contents (because the passenger disavowed ownership of
luggage), so the search is invalid.
- There may be situations where a passenger can establish a reasonable expectation
of privacy regarding a vehicle (e.g. sharing of driving responsibilities - Belnavis).
Here the passenger was the renter of the vehicle.
- Ref. to Edwards (onus is on each appellant to individually prove s. 8 violation).
- (2) The evidence was non-conscriptive and can be admitted without compromising
the fairness of the trial.
-Ref. to Collins (3 factor test: conscriptive?; serious Charter violation?; effect of
exclusion?).
- Ref. to Kokesch (purpose of considering factors re seriousness of Charter violation
(disrepute of justice system); marijuana drug offences are less serious than “hard”
drug offences).
- (1) There is a greater expectation of privacy for the registered owner of a vehicle.
- The normal expectation of privacy is reduced where the accused is not present nor
in possession of the vehicle for many months (but some reasonable expectation of
privacy remains).
- The search was warrantless, therefore prima facie unreasonable.
Property Search –
Vehicle
R. v. Ladouceur
[2002] 165 C.C.C. (3d)
321
Jackson J.A. and
Bayda C.J.S; Tallis
J.A. (con).
* no history
- Police set up a random
check-stop program that went
beyond the purpose of
highway safety and included
a search for illegal
contraband.
- The accused’s vehicle was
searched and drugs were
found.
- Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, s. 5(2)
Schedule II;
- Charter, ss.8, 9, 24(2).
- The Court found a s. 9 violation, making a s.
8 finding unnecessary.
- (2) Should evidence be excluded under
s.24(2)?
• YES
- (1) The check-stops were made because of knowledge that illegal contraband was
being transported along Hwy #1.
- (2) The trial judge excluded evidence under s. 24(2).
73