R. v. Balla (B.J.), 2016 ABCA 212

• Judge: Paperny, Watson and Veldhuis, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: April 14, 2016
• Citations: 2016 ABCA 212;[2016] A.R. TBEd. JL.030

R. v. Balla (B.J.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JL.030

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. JL.030

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Bryan James Balla (appellant)

(1501-0084-A; 2016 ABCA 212)

Indexed As: R. v. Balla (B.J.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Paperny, Watson and Veldhuis, JJ.A.

July 6, 2016.

Summary:

The accused was charged with numerous offences involving drugs and guns. On the first day of trial, the accused applied for Charter relief, alleging that members of the Calgary Police Service breached his rights under ss. 7, 8 and 9 of the Charter either when he was arrested or in executing a search warrant at his residence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 583 A.R. 79, dismissed the accused's application. There was no breach of the accused's Charter rights. The matter proceeded to trial.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 597 A.R. 198, convicted the accused of numerous counts in the indictment. The accused appealed the conviction.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1524 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1524

Property - Personal property - Search and seizure by police (incl. computers, cellphones or digital cameras) - The police obtained a warrant (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)) to search the accused's residence, including "electronic communication devices, and documents ..." - Digital cameras were not mentioned - However, while searching the residence, a police officer seized a digital camera and copied the photographs - The accused alleged a s. 8 Charter breach - The trial judge held that the accused had a lower expectation of privacy in a "pure" digital camera than in a computer or smartphone - Here, the contents fell within the description of "documents" in the warrant - Furthermore, s. 11(6) of the CDSA authorized the search and seizure - Section 8 was not breached - Even if it was, the court would not have excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) - The accused appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court held that the evidence from the camera would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) even if there was a breach of s. 8 - Therefore, the court found it unnecessary to address the issues under s. 8 in a final way - See paragraphs 2, 6, and 30 to 47.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1524 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1524 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2024

Search and seizure - Search warrants - Execution - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1524 ].

Counsel:

B. Mercier, for the respondent;

G. Wolch, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard in Calgary, Alberta, on April 14, 2016, before Paperny, Watson and Veldhuis, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court on July 6, 2016.