R. v. Bennett (D.S.), (2012) 329 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 70 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 15, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2012), 329 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 70 (NLPC)

R. v. Bennett (D.S.) (2012), 329 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 70 (NLPC);

    1022 A.P.R. 70

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. OC.056

Her Majesty the Queen v. David Stewart Bennett

(2012 PCNL 1312PA00386)

Indexed As: R. v. Bennett (D.S.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

October 26, 2012.

Summary:

A woman told police that her common law spouse (the accused) had driven his pick-up truck into the side of their residence. The woman left the residence. When the police arrived, they found a pick-up truck outside and a damaged house. They entered the residence without a warrant and found the accused "passed out" in a chair. The accused was arrested and subsequently charged with various criminal offences, including dangerous driving, impaired driving, driving with an excessive blood/alcohol content, damage to property, and uttering a threat. The accused pleaded not guilty. The Crown sought to introduce as evidence at trial: (1) police observations of the accused's sobriety inside the residence; (2) results of a breathalyzer test; and (3) a number of verbal utterances purportedly made by the accused to police on the way to and at the detachment. The accused sought exclusion of the evidence (Charter, s. 24(2)), alleging that the entering of the residence by the police and their arrest of him within the residence constituted violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court ruled that breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter occurred. The observations of the accused made by the police while they were in his residence and the analysis of the samples of breath obtained from him were ruled to be inadmissible. The utterances made by the accused to the police were ruled to be admissible.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - A woman told police that her common law spouse (the accused) drove his pick-up truck into the side of their residence with his daughter in the vehicle - The woman left the house - Upon arrival, the police discovered a damaged pick-up truck and a damaged house - They entered the residence without a warrant and found the accused "passed out" in a chair - He was arrested and charged with criminal offences - He alleged Charter breaches - The Crown relied on both common law (imminent harm and hot pursuit) exceptions to the warrant requirement and the statutory exigent circumstances exception (Criminal Code, s. 529.3) - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court found that none of these exceptions were established - The police entered a residence without a warrant and arrested the accused - Sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were breached - See paragraphs 1 to 65.

Civil Rights - Topic 1650.1

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1650.3

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Exigent circumstances - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1652

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Hot pursuit doctrine - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - A woman told police that her common law spouse (the accused) drove his pick-up truck into the side of their residence with his daughter in the vehicle - The woman left the house - Upon arrival, the police saw damage to the pick-up truck and house - They entered the residence without a warrant and found the accused "passed out" in a chair - He was arrested and charged with criminal offences - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court found breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter - The court, therefore, excluded the police officers' observations of the accused while they were in his residence and a breath sample analysis - However, the accused's utterances to police on the way to and at the detachment were ruled admissible - See paragraphs 66 to 84.

Police - Topic 3061.1

Powers - Arrest and detention - Intoxicated persons - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Police - Topic 3073

Powers - Arrest and detention - Arrest without warrant - Of person in a dwelling - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Jackpine (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554; 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Rodgers - see R. v. Jackpine (R.)

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Jackman (D.K.) (2011), 313 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 203; 974 A.P.R. 203 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Cole (R.) et al. (2012), 435 N.R. 102; 2012 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. MacDonald (E.) (2012), 317 N.S.R.(2d) 90; 1003 A.P.R. 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Clayton (W.) et al. (2007), 364 N.R. 199; 227 O.A.C. 314 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Tse (Y.F.A.) (2012), 429 N.R. 109; 321 B.C.A.C. 1; 547 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Godoy (V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; 235 N.R. 134; 117 O.A.C. 127, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Slaunwhite (R.L.) (2012) 323 NSR 187; 1025 APR 187.003 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Davis (J.N.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 345 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Farrah (D.) (2011), 268 Man.R.(2d) 112; 520 W.A.C. 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Basteiro (2006), 37 M.V.R.(5th) 45 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Timmons (W.T.) (2011), 303 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 957 A.P.R. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Macooh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 802; 155 N.R. 44; 141 A.R. 321; 46 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Hope - see R. v. Galloway (M.) et al.

R. v. Galloway (M.) et al. (2007), 259 N.S.R.(2d) 99; 828 A.P.R. 99; 2007 NSCA 103, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Clarke (P.) (2005), 198 O.A.C. 316 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Van Puyenbroek (Y.) (2007), 231 O.A.C. 146; 226 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. DeWolfe (C.L.) (2007), 256 N.S.R.(2d) 221; 818 A.P.R. 221; 222 C.C.C.(3d) 491 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Knelsen (W.) (2012), 283 Man.R.(2d) 182; 2012 MBQB 242, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Stevens (2011), 250 C.R.R.(2d) 36 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Cornell (J.M.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 142; 404 N.R. 133; 487 A.R. 1; 495 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Hutchings (J.) (2012), 329 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 56; 1022 A.P.R. 56 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Côté (A.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 215; 421 N.R. 112, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Pearson (B.J.) (2012), 536 AR 37; 559 WAC 37 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Harrison (B.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494; 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Rocha (J.) (2012), 296 O.A.C. 357; 2012 ONCA 707, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. S.S. (2012), 322 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 61; 1000 A.P.R. 61 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. MacDonald (A.) (2012), 294 O.A.C. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Hart (N.L.) (2012), 327 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 178; 1015 A.P.R. 178; 2012 NLCA 61, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Henderson (W.E.) (2012), 284 Man.R.(2d) 164; 555 W.A.C. 164; 2012 MBCA 93, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Squires (E.) (2005), 249 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 14; 743 A.P.R. 14 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Gould (P.) (2011), 306 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 342; 951 A.P.R. 342 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Obed (S.) (2010), 300 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 927 A.P.R. 1 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Pike (A.N.) (2010), 297 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 342; 918 A.P.R. 342 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Piercey (J.) (2011), 312 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 87; 971 A.P.R. 97 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 82].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 29]; sect. 9 [para. 32]; sect. 24(2) [para. 65].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 529.3 [para. 56]; sect. 529.4(3) [para. 61].

Counsel:

E. Ring, for Her Majesty the Queen;

G. Kearney, Q.C., for Mr. Bennett.

This case was heard on October 15, 2012, before Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on October 26, 2012.