R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), (1996) 91 O.A.C. 3 (CA)

• Judge: Osborne, Doherty and Austin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 08, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 91 O.A.C. 3 (CA);1996 CanLII 4007 (NS CA);1996 CanLII 4007 (ON CA);29 OR (3d) 321;107 CCC (3d) 195;48 CR (4th) 320;[1996] OJ No 1853 (QL);36 CRR (2d) 32;91 OAC 3

R. v. Belnavis (A.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 3 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Alicia Belnavis and Carol Lawrence (respondents)

(C15516; C15183)

Indexed As: R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Osborne, Doherty and Austin, JJ.A.

May 28, 1996.

Summary:

The accused were charged with ten counts of possession of stolen property relating to merchandise found in an automobile occupied by the accused which had been stopped for speeding. A voir dire was held at trial to determine the ad­missibility of the merchan­dise.

The Ontario Court (General Division) held that the accused's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure (Charter, s. 8) was 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 allowed the appeal, quashed the acquittals and directed a new trial for both accused on all counts.

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 Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the acquittals - The passenger had no reason­able expectation of privacy respecting the vehicle or the seized material thus there was no violation of her s. 8 Charter rights - The driver, however, had a reasonable expectation of privacy respecting the vehicle - The warrantless search was not authorized by law and therefore unreason­able and contrary to the driver's s. 8 Char­ter rights - Admission of the evidence, however, would not bring the administra­tion of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - Expectation of privacy - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the reasonable expectation of privacy respect­ing motor vehicles - See paragraphs 27 to 43.

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 - The Ontario Court of Ap­peal reviewed the test for when evi­dence would be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the basis that admission of the evidence would render the trial unfair - See paragraphs 59 to 97.

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 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 Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that admission of the evidence would not render the trial unfair and that the breach was serious, but held that the breach was not so serious that it justified exclusion without the trial judge considering the effect of exclusion on the administration of justice - Here the admission of the evi­dence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and the evidence should have been admitted - See para­graphs 59 to 97.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The Ontario Court of Ap­peal stated that "appellate reversal of trial rulings made under s. 24(2) of the Charter is appropriate only where the trial judge has erred in the application of the relevant principles or made an unreason­able finding ..." - See paragraph 59.

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; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [paras. 23, 61].

R. v. Edwards (C.) (1996), 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 136 (S.C.C.), affing. (1994), 73 O.A.C. 55; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Pugliese (1992), 52 O.A.C. 280; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Wijesinha (W.K.K.) (1995), 186 N.R. 169; 85 O.A.C. 241; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 410, refd to. [para. 26].

Rakas v. Illinois (1978), 99 S.Ct. 421, refd to. [para. 26].

Jones v. United States (1960), 362 U.S. 257, refd to. [para. 27].

United States v. Gomez (1994), 16 F.3d 254 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al. (1996), 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 23 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 170; 32 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 31].

Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980), 100 S.Ct. 2556, refd to. [para. 33].

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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173; 24 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 460, refd to. [para. 33].

United States v. Williams (1983), 714 F.2d 777 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 37].

United States v. Portillo (1980), 633 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir.), cert. den. 450 U.S. 1043, refd to. [para. 37].

People v. Naranjo (1984), 686 P.2d 1343 (Colo.), refd to. [para. 39].

United States v. Rose (1984), 731 F.2d 1337 (8th Cir.), cert. den. 469 U.S. 931, refd to. [para. 39].

United States v. Martinez (1987), 808 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Dersch (W.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768; 158 N.R. 375; 33 B.C.A.C. 269; 54 W.A.C. 269; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Hall (R.) (1995), 79 O.A.C. 24; 22 O.R.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 37, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Speid (1991), 8 C.R.R.(2d) 383 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1992), 139 N.R. 160; 55 O.A.C. 391 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Jeffrey v. Black, [1978] 1 Q.B. 490 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Lim (No. 2) (1990), 1 C.R.R.(2d) 136 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Ont. C.A.), leave to ap­peal refused (1984), 57 N.R. 238; 4 O.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Texas v. Brown (1983), 103 S.Ct. 1535, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 16 C.R.(4th) 273, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Nielson (1988), 66 Sask.R. 293; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 548 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. I.D.D. (1987), 60 Sask.R. 72; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. McComber (1988), 29 O.A.C. 311; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 450; 38 C.R.(4th) 330, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Acciavitti (M.J.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 137; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Zammit (J.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 272; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 7, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 1 C.R.(4th) 62; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 193; 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 157; 50 C.R.R. 285, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 26 C.R.(4th) 289; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 297, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 70 C.R.(3d) 97; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 47 C.R.R. 171, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Meddoui (1990), 111 A.R. 295; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Goldhart (1995), 83 O.A.C. 300; 42 C.R.(4th) 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Clement (1995), 83 O.A.C. 226; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Robert (K.D.) (1996), 71 B.C.A.C. 43; 117 W.A.C. 43; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 480 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Goncalves (H.M.) (1993), 131 A.R. 68; 25 W.A.C. 68; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 240; revsd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 3; 150 N.R. 384; 135 A.R. 397; 33 W.A.C. 397; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 248, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Turcotte (1987), 60 Sask.R. 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Richard (A.N.) (1996), 195 N.R. 394; 150 N.S.R.(2d) 239; 436 A.P.R. 239 (S.C.C.), reving. (1995), 141 N.S.R.(2d) 103; 403 A.P.R. 103; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 441 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Fasciano - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 24(2) [para. 2 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Delisle, R.J., Excluding Evidence under s. 24(2): Mellenthin Reincarnated (1996), 42 C.R.(4th) 61, generally [para. 61].

Delisle, R.J., Mellenthin: Changing the Collins Test (1993), 16 C.R.(4th) 286, generally [para. 61].

LaFave, Wayne R., Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3rd Ed. 1996), vol. 5, pp. 181 to 190 [para. 37].

Paciocco, D.M., Improperly Obtained Evidence: s. 24(2) of the Charter, Recent Issues and Developments in Criminal Law (1996), generally [para. 61].

Stuart, D., Burlingham and Silveira: New Charter Standards to Control Police Manipulation and Exclusion of Evidence (1995), 38 C.R.(4th) 386, p. 389 [para. 61].

Counsel:

Christine Bartlett-Hughes, for the appel­lant;

James Lockyer, for the respondent, Law­rence;

Peter Zaduk, for the respondent, Belnavis.

This appeal was heard on December 8, 1996, before Osborne, Doherty and Austin, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was released by Do­herty, J.A., on May 28, 1996.