R. v. Bradley (P.W.), (1999) 11 B.C.T.C. 202 (SC)

• Judge: Romilly, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 25, 1999
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 11 B.C.T.C. 202 (SC)

R. v. Bradley (P.W.) (1999), 11 B.C.T.C. 202 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. JN.148

Her Majesty The Queen v. Philip Wayne Bradley

(CC960539; CC960900)

Indexed As: R. v. Bradley (P.W.)

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Romilly, J.

May 26, 1999.

Summary:

An informant advised police that the accused possessed a stolen Isuzu automobile and other stolen property and was growing marijuana. Three officers went to the ac­cused's residence to ask questions. They went toward the front door but were deterred by a dog. In proceeding to the rear door, the officers saw an Isuzu. They radioed in the VIN number as well as the identification numbers from a compactor and weed blower and discovered that the Isuzu and other items were stolen. Two officers went to obtain a search warrant. The other officer stayed to secure the premises. A warrant was obtained and a search conducted. Stolen goods and marijuana plants were seized. The accused was charged with, inter alia, cul­tivation of marijuana, possession of mari­juana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of stolen property. The accused alleged a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights and applied to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application. The court held that the accused had a high expectation of pri­vacy in his yard and that when the of­ficers began to check the VIN number and other identification numbers (which were not in plain view) they became involved in a warrantless unlawful search in breach of s. 8 and they became trespassers. Further, as the warrant was issued based on information from that unlawful search, the evidence seized under the warrant was obtained in breach of s. 8. However, the court admitted the evidence because its exclusion would adversely affect the reputation of the admin­istration of justice. While the evidence was non-conscriptive, the breach was serious and the police were not acting in good faith, the court considered the seriousness of the of­fences and the importance of the evidence to the Crown's case.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - Expectation of privacy - See paragraphs 24 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 1561

Property - Land - Trespass - See parag­raph 21.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Un­reason­able search and seizure defined - See paragraphs 18 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 1650

Property - Search and seizure - War­rantless search and seizure - Plain view doctrine - See paragraph 21.

Civil Rights - Topic 1650.1

Property - Search and seizure - War­rantless search and seizure - What consti­tutes - See paragraph 21.

Civil Rights - Topic 1654

Property - Search and seizure - War­rentless search and seizure - Perimeter search - See paragraphs 18 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - See paragraphs 27 to 57.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hamill (1984), 14 C.C.C.(3d) 338 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Vukelich (M.) (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 113; 128 W.A.C. 113; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 216 N.R. 239; 98 B.C.A.C. 80; 161 W.A.C. 80 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Feldman (A.F.) (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 31; 67 W.A.C. 31; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Durette et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 81; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 421 (C.A.), revd. [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 4].

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. 12].

R. v. K.L. et al. (1999), 118 B.C.A.C. 106; 192 W.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Smith (W.M.) (1998), 219 A.R. 109; 179 W.A.C. 109; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Belliveau and Losier (1986), 75 N.B.R.(2d) 18; 188 A.P.R. 18; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Dreysko (1990), 110 A.R. 317 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Campbell (S.) (1993), 36 B.C.A.C. 204; 58 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Harris and Lighthouse Video Centres Ltd. (1987), 20 O.A.C. 26; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 57 C.R.(3d) 356 (C.A.), leave to ap­peal refused [1987] 2 S.C.R vii; 86 N.R. 400; 25 O.A.C. 240, refd to. [paras. 19, 54].

R. v. Keifer (1990), 11 W.C.B.(2d) 295 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19].

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. 20].

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. 22].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405, refd to. [para. 23].

Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841; 225 N.R. 297; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Dawson (W.) et al. (1997), 32 O.T.C. 257 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46; 66 C.R.(3d) 336, refd to. [para. 31].

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; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 33 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Couture (1998), 129 C.C.C.(3d) 302 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 67 C.R.(3d) 252; 38 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 67 C.R.(3d) 224; 37 C.R.R. 252, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 58 C.R.(3d) 97; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 46].

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; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Laurin (R.R.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 50; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 519 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Puskas (J.F.) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Lauda (J.M.) (1998), 106 O.A.C. 161; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 74 (C.A.), affd. [1998] 2 S.C.R. 683; 232 N.R. 1; 115 O.A.C. 293; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 46; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 23, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 110, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Duncanson, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 836; 135 N.R. 117; 97 Sask.R. 96; 12 W.A.C. 96, affing. (1991), 93 Sask.R. 193; 4 W.A.C. 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Fish (1989), 35 O.A.C. 245; 44 C.R.R. 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Ottenbreit (1989), 77 Sask.R. 3 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Bailey (1988), 87 N.S.R.(2d) 245; 222 A.P.R. 245; 39 C.R.R. 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Siddall (1992), 110 N.S.R.(2d) 117; 299 A.P.R. 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Counsel:

C. Greenwood, for the Crown;

M. Nathanson, for the accused.

This application was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 25, 1999, by Romilly, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 26, 1999.