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)
Home (warrantles)
Dagg v. Canada
(Minister of Finance)
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 403,
Cory J. with Lamer
C.J., Sopinka,
McLachlin and
Iacobucci JJ. (con);
La Forest,
L’Heureux-Dubé,
Gonthier and Major
JJ. (dis)
- Union employee arrival and
departure time data acquired
through an ATIP request to
Revenue Canada was made
public with personal
information removed.
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2);
-Privacy Act, ss. 2, 3(i)(j),
8(2)(m)).
- Does the information in the logs contain
personal information (as per Privacy Act)?
• YES
- Did the Minister properly exercise his
discretion?
• YES
- (1) LaForest’s dissent discussed the reasonable expectation of privacy Revenue
employees had in information (sign-in logs) collected as backups in case of fire.
- Ref. to Plant (core biographical information relating to informational privacy)
- Ref. to Hunter (purpose of s. 8)
Personal Info –
Employment Info
R. v. Belnavis
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 341,
1997 CanLII 320
(S.C.C.)
Cory J., with
Lamer C.J.,
L'Heureux-Dubé,
Gonthier,
McLachlin, Major
and Sopinka JJ.
(con); Iacobucci
(dis in part); La
Forest (dis)
Property Search –
Vehicle – Accused
not owner but use
permitted
- The accused was pulled over
for a traffic violation. While
the accused was searching for
documents, a passenger was
questioned.
- Stolen goods were found in
the vehicle, which belonged to
a friend of the accused and
was being used with
permission.
- Charter, ss. 8, 24(2). - (1) Does the accused have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the vehicle?
• YES
- (2) Does the passenger have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the vehicle
• NO
- (3) Did the actions of the officers constitute
a search in violation of s.8?
• YES (for driver, not for passenger)
- (4) Should the evidence be excluded under
s.24(2)?
• NO
- (1) The driver had permission to use the car and thus had a reasonable expectation
of privacy.
- (2) The passenger’s reasonable expectation of privacy is judged on the totality of
circumstances and here her connection to the car was too tenuous to ground a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
- (3) The s. 8 breach was merely technical and therefore the evidence should not be
excluded under 24(2)
- (4) A car is not as protected as a house and the car of a friend even less so.
- Ref. to Edwards (totality of circumstances)
- Ref. to Hunter (s. 8 protects reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Ref. to Kokesch (facts compared – and kokesch was distinguished)
9