Eccles v. Bourque et al., (1974) 3 N.R. 259 (SCC)

• Judge: Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 24, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 3 N.R. 259 (SCC);[1975] 1 WWR 609;3 NR 259;[1974] CarswellBC 414;AZ-75111114;[1974] ACS no 123;1974 CanLII 191 (SCC);[1974] SCJ No 123 (QL);[1975] 2 SCR 739;19 CCC (2d) 129;50 DLR (3d) 753

Eccles v. Bourque (1974), 3 N.R. 259 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Eccles v. Bourque et al.

Indexed As: Eccles v. Bourque et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson,

Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson,

Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

October 11, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim for damages for trespass against the defendant police officers. The defendants entered the plaintiff's apartment in search of a fugitive for whom there were outstanding warrants for arrest. The police officers stated that they were "Vancouver City Police". The plaintiff asked the policemen "what do you want?". The police replied that they had reason to believe that a wanted man had just entered the plaintiff's apartment. Without the consent of the plaintiff the police searched the apartment. The trial judge allowed the plaintiff's action and awarded the plaintiff $300.00 damages for trespass.

On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was set aside - see 41 D.L.R.(3d) 392.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a police officer may enter a dwelling house without the consent of the occupant if the police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a fugitive is in the house and proper announcement is made prior to the entry - see paragraphs 6 to 8.

Torts - Topic 3005

Trespass - Trespass to a dwelling house - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a man's house "is to him as his castle and fortress, as well as his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose" - See paragraph 3.

Torts - Topic 3017

Trespass to a dwelling house by police officers - Criminal process - The defendant police officers forcibly entered and searched the plaintiff's house without a warrant - The police were searching for a fugitive - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the plaintiff's action for damages for trespass - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a police officer may enter a house without the consent of the occupant if the police officer has reasonable and probably grounds to believe that a fugitive is in the house and proper announcement is made prior to entry - See paragraph 6 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the defendant police officers acted upon reasonable and probable grounds and gave the plaintiff proper notice before forcing entry - See paragraph 8.

Cases Noticed:

Semayne's case, 5 Coke 91 a, folld. [para. 3].

Johnson v. Leigh (1815), 6 Taunt. 246, folld. [para. 7].

Morrish v. Murrey (1844), 13 M & W 52; 153 E.R. 22, folld. [para. 7].

Southam v. Smout, [1964] 1 Q.B. 308, folld. [para. 7].

Mathews v. Dwan, [1949] N.Z.L.R. 1035, refd to. [para. 7].

Davis v. Lisle, [1936] 2 K.B. 434, dist. [para. 7].

Thomas v. Sawkins, [1935] 2 K.B. 249, dist. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 25 [para. 3]; sect. 450(1)(a).

Counsel:

W.A.M. Stewart, for the appellant;

Allan McEachern, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on May 24, 1974. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 11, 1974 and the following opinions were filed:

MARTLAND, J. - see paragraph 1.

DICKSON, J. - see paragraphs 2 to 9.

RITCHIE, PIGEON, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ., concurred with MARTLAND, J.

LASKIN, C.J.C., JUDSON and SPENCE, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.