R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), (1997) 103 O.A.C. 81 (SCC)
Judge | Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | September 25, 1997 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1997), 103 O.A.C. 81 (SCC) |
R. v. Belnavis (A.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 81 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [1997] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.035
Carol Lawrence and Alicia Belnavis (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(File No. 25507)
Indexed As: R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
September 25, 1997.
Summary:
The police stopped a speeding vehicle and found merchandise they believed was stolen. The accused, the driver and passenger, were charged with ten counts of possession of stolen property. A voir dire was held at trial to determine the admissibility of the merchandise.
The Ontario Court (General Division) held that the accuseds' rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure (Charter, s. 8) were violated when a police officer searched the motor vehicle without a warrant and seized the merchandise. The court therefore excluded the evidence under s. 24 of the Charter and acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal in a decision reported 91 O.A.C. 3, allowed the appeal, quashed the acquittals and directed a new trial for both accused on all counts. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. La Forest, J., dissented and Iacobucci, J., dissented in part.
Civil Rights - Topic 1508
Property - Expectation of privacy - A police officer stopped a speeding vehicle and saw garbage bags of clothing in the back seat - Suspecting that the clothing was stolen, he searched the trunk and found more clothing - The vehicle driver, who was using the car with the owner's permission, and a passenger were acquitted of possessing stolen property - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the acquittals should be quashed - The passenger had no reasonable expectation of privacy respecting the vehicle or the seized material and thus could not claim a violation of s. 8 Charter rights - The driver, however, had a reasonable expectation of privacy respecting the vehicle - The warrantless search was contrary to the driver's s. 8 Charter rights - However, the breach was not serious and admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Civil Rights - Topic 1508
Property - Expectation of privacy - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the reasonable expectation of privacy respecting motor vehicles - See paragraphs 22 and 23.
Civil Rights - Topic 1646
Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 1650
Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Plain view doctrine - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 1651
Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - A police officer stopped a speeding vehicle and saw garbage bags of clothing in the back seat - Suspecting that the clothing was stolen, he searched the trunk and found more clothing - The trial judge held that the search was contrary to the driver's rights under s. 8 of the Charter and that although admission of the evidence would not adversely affect the fairness of the trial, the seriousness of the breach compelled exclusion - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge's finding that the breach was serious was unreasonable - The breach was not a serious one and admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508, refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 19, 75].
R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 28, 52, 80].
R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 35, 52].
R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, refd to. [paras. 38, 49, 52, 79].
R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 41].
R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 41].
R. v. Sieben, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 295; 74 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322, refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.
R. v. Fasciano - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.
R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [paras. 49, 56].
R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 49, 80].
R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Goncalves (H.M.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 3; 150 N.R. 384; 135 A.R. 397; 33 W.A.C. 397, refd to. [para. 52].
R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 56].
R. v. Barrett (D.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 752; 179 N.R. 68; 80 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 64].
R. v. Lamy (R.M.J.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 179; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 558 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].
R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 20 C.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].
R. v. McMaster (R.A.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 740; 194 N.R. 278; 181 A.R. 199; 116 W.A.C. 199, refd to. [para. 70].
R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].
R. v. Klimchuk (A.W.) (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 26; 9 W.A.C. 26; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].
R. v. Stockley, [1997] N.J. No. 25 (Q.L.), refd to. [para. 74].
R. v. W.S.S.K., [1991] B.C.J. No. 3603 (Q.L.), refd to. [para. 74].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 75].
Maryland v. Wilson (1997), 117 S.Ct. 882, refd to. [para. 75].
Rakas v. Illinois (1978), 439 U.S. 128, refd to. [para. 85].
R. v. Landry, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145; 65 N.R. 161; 14 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 90].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Roach, Kent, Constitutional Remedies in Canada (1996), paras. 10.1850, 10.1860 [para. 71].
Counsel:
James Lockyer and Paul Shapiro, for the appellants;
Christine Bartlett-Hughes, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Pinkofsky, Lockyer & Kwinter, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;
Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 27, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on September 25, 1997, and the following opinions were filed:
Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 48;
Sopinka, J. - see paragraphs 49 to 50;
Iacobucci, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 51 to 74;
La Forest, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 75 to 96.
To continue reading
Request your trial