R. v. Brake (D.W.M.), (2001) 201 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 261 (NFPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 16, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2001), 201 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 261 (NFPC)

R. v. Brake (D.W.M.) (2001), 201 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 261 (NFPC);

    605 A.P.R. 261

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. MY.036

Her Majesty the Queen v. Dale William Michael Brake

(No. 1399A384)

Indexed As: R. v. Brake (D.W.M.)

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

May 18, 2001.

Summary:

An accused was charged with possession of an illegal substance contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The accused asserted that a search warrant was defective and should not have been issued and, accordingly, the search of his residence conducted pursuant to the warrant violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court held that the search violated s. 8 and excluded the resulting evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 1556

Property - Land - Search or seizure of private residence - An accused was charged with possession of a controlled substance (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 4(1)) - The accused asserted that a search of his residence contravened s. 8 of the Charter - The information to obtain the search warrant was based on a confidential source - It contained dated information - How the source was aware of the information was not disclosed - Although the source was identified as "reliable", the affiant did not indicate whose belief it was or why the belief was held - The Newfoundland Pro­vincial Court held that the accused's s. 8 rights were violated and excluded the resulting evidence - Admission of the evidence would not render the trial unfair - However, the breach was serious and although not wilful, it resulted from police negligence or carelessness - The police had the necessary information to place before the justice, but failed to do so - There were no exigent circumstances.

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1556 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreason­able search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1556 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1556 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3183

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information - Suffi­ciency of form and content - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1556 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3185

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information - Failure to state grounds for belief - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1556 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3189

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Failure to verify sources of information - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1556 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2043

Search and seizure - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information - Suffi­ciency of form and contents - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1556 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2047

Search and seizure - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Failure to state grounds for belief - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1556 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 2].

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; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 240; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 2].

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

R. v. Budd (W.) et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 116; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 2].

R. v. Shalala (R.H.) (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 118; 574 A.P.R. 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Colet, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 2; 35 N.R. 227; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 105, refd to. [para. 15].

Semayne's Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91; 77 E.R. 194, refd to. [para. 15].

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, refd to. [para. 15].

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. 15].

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, refd to. [para. 15].

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; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; [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, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Ruzic (M.) (2001), 268 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

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; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Garofoli et al. (1988), 27 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al. (2000), 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Waterford Hospital (1983), 43 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 132; 127 A.P.R. 132 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Dodge (1984), 50 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 349; 149 A.P.R. 349; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Brown (1922), 38 C.C.C. 149 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Hicks v. McCune (1921), 36 C.C.C. 141 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Wiens (1973), 24 C.R.N.S. 341 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Veinot (K.A.) (1995), 144 N.S.R.(2d) 388; 416 A.P.R. 388 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Times Square Book Store, Re (1985), 10 O.A.C. 105; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 503 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Allain (S.) (1998), 205 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 523 A.P.R. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Monroe (D.T.) (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 256; 147 W.A.C. 256; 8 C.R.(5th) 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

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. 22].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 203, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 67 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 54 C.R.(3d) 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Lubell (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 188 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Berger v. R. (1989), 74 Sask.R. 198; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300, refd to. [para. 26].

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. 28].

R. v. Pippin (S.D.) (1994), 116 Sask.R. 275; 59 W.A.C. 275; 27 C.R.(4th) 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Zammit (J.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 272; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Hosie (G.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 281; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Snelgrove (F.D.) et al. (1997), 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 296; 464 A.P.R. 296 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Hancock (J.) (2000), 196 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 158; 589 A.P.R. 158 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 46; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Yorke (1992), 115 N.S.R.(2d) 426; 314 A.P.R. 426; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Morris (W.R.) (1998), 173 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 527 A.P.R. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Chaulk and DiCristo (1991), 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 152; 292 A.P.R. 152; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Makwaychuk (M.M.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 199; 41 W.A.C. 199; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Cheecham (1989), 80 Sask.R. 74; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Beauregard (1999), 136 C.C.C.(3d) 80 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Gimson (1990), 37 O.A.C. 243; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 232 (C.A.), affd. [1991] 3 S.C.R. 692; 152 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 282; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 552, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Smellie (S.A.) (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 202; 87 W.A.C. 202; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 9 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Gordon (E.W.T.) (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 298; 202 W.A.C. 298; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Sutherland (M.) (2000), 139 O.A.C. 53; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 231 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Batten (G.P.) (1997), 153 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 209; 475 A.P.R. 209 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Roche (H.) (1995), 128 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 346; 400 A.P.R. 346 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Calder (M.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 660; 194 N.R. 52; 90 O.A.C. 18; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 54].

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; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296; 38 C.R.R. 252; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 56].

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. 57].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 60].

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, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 67 C.R.(3d) 209; 37 C.R.R. 369, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Ross - see R. v. Leclair and Ross.

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 61].

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, refd to. [para. 62].

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, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Collymore (L.) et al. (1999), 123 O.A.C. 240; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

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. 63].

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. 69].

R. v. Harris and Lighthouse Video Centres Ltd. (1987), 20 O.A.C. 26; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Fry (R.L.) (1999), 183 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 346; 556 A.P.R. 346 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Legere (A.J.) (1994), 156 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 401 A.P.R. 321; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Love (R.J.) (1995), 174 A.R. 360; 102 W.A.C. 360; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 393 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

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. 79].

R. v. Richard (A.N.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 896; 195 N.R. 394; 150 N.S.R.(2d) 239; 436 A.P.R. 239; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 192, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Goncalves (H.M.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 3; 150 N.R. 384; 135 A.R. 397; 33 W.A.C. 397; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 240, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Richards (J.C.) (1997), 153 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 161; 475 A.P.R. 161 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 82, footnote 6].

R. v. Carrier (A.J.) (1996), 181 A.R. 284; 116 W.A.C. 284; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hession, Grace, Is Real Evidence Still a Factor in the Assessment of Trial Fair­ness under Section 24(2)? (1999), 41 C.L.Q. 93, generally [para. 62, footnote 4].

Hill, Hutchison, and Pringle, Search War­rants: Protection or Illusion (2000), 28 C.R.(5th) 89, pp. 89, 108 [para. 85, footnote 7].

Counsel:

Gary Kearney, for the accused;

James Merrigan, for Her Majesty the Queen.

Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, heard this application on March 16, 2001, and delivered the following judgment on May 18, 2001.