R. v. Briggs (W.), (2001) 149 O.A.C. 244 (CA)

• Judge: Weiler, Austin and Borins, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 23, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2001), 149 O.A.C. 244 (CA);2001 CanLII 24113 (NS CA);2001 CanLII 24113 (ON CA);55 OR (3d) 417;157 CCC (3d) 38;45 CR (5th) 99;[2001] CarswellOnt 2911;[2001] OJ No 3339 (QL);149 OAC 244;86 CRR (2d) 196

R. v. Briggs (W.) (2001), 149 O.A.C. 244 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.032

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. William Briggs (appellant)

(C34813)

Indexed As: R. v. Briggs (W.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Austin and Borins, JJ.A.

August 23, 2001.

Summary:

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery, unlawful use of an imitation firearm and possession of stolen property. After the offender was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment, the Crown applied for an order authorizing the taking of a bodily sample from the offender's person to be submitted to the national DNA data bank.

A judge allowed the application and made an order pursuant to s. 487.052 of the Criminal Code. The offender appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: See also 142 O.A.C. 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 3082 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1444

Security of the person - Right to privacy - Expectation of privacy - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 3082 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 3082 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3082

Special powers - Forensic DNA analysis - DNA sample order - Criteria - The DNA Identification Act (Can.) was passed for the purpose of setting up a national DNA data bank to help in the identification of persons alleged to have committed designated offences (s. 3) - Section 487.052 of the Criminal Code authorized a judge, in respect of offences committed before the coming into force of the Act, to issue an order for the taking of bodily substances from the offender for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis if it was "in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so" - The substances were taken by the plucking of individual hairs, the taking of buccal swabs and the taking of blood by pricking with a sterile lancet - The analysis results were eventually forwarded to the national DNA data bank - An offender argued that the appropriate standard for the issuance of an order under s. 487.052 was reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence would be or had been committed, a standard derived from the standard applicable to search warrants - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this interpretation as unwarranted and unnecessary: unwarranted because the purposes, context and expectations of privacy when a DNA order was made were all different from those of a search warrant; unnecessary for giving s. 487.052 an interpretation consistent with s. 8 of the Charter where both the taking of the sample pursuant to s. 487.052 and its use were already consistent with the Charter - See paragraphs 19 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 3082

Special powers - Forensic DNA analysis - DNA sample order - Criteria - Section 487.052 of the Criminal Code authorized a judge, in respect of offences committed before the coming into force of the DNA Identification Act, to issue an order for the taking of bodily substances from the offender for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis if it was "in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so" - An offender argued that the appropriate standard for the issuance of such an order was reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence would be or had been committed, a standard derived from the standard applicable to search warrants - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this interpretation - The court held that the words "reasonable and probable grounds" did not have to be imported into the standard "the best interests of the administration of justice" for the legislation not to be overly broad or vague as required by the requirement of fundamental justice in s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 41 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 3082

Special powers - Forensic DNA analysis - DNA sample order - Criteria - Section 487.052 of the Criminal Code authorized a judge, in respect of offences committed before the coming into force of the DNA Identification Act, to issue an order for the taking of bodily substances from the offender for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis if it was "in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so" - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the phrase "the best interests of the administration of justice" had been given content by requiring the court to consider: (1) the offender's criminal record; (2) the nature of the offence; (3) the circumstances surrounding its commission; and (4) the impact of the order on the person's privacy and security - The court also held that the authorizing judge could take into consideration the entire criminal record of the offender, including whether the offender was convicted of further offences committed after the date of the offence on which the application was based and the nature of those offences - See paragraphs 62 to 82.

Words and Phrases

The best interests of the administration of justice - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the phrase "the best interests of the administration of justice" found in s. 487.052 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Araujo (A.) (2000), 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 7].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404; 33 C.R.(4th) 147, refd to. [para. 8].

S.F. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 329; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), consd. [para. 9].

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. 19].

R. v. McCullough (C.G.), [2000] O.A.C. Uned. 3; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 2].

R. v. Feeney (M.) (2001), 149 B.C.A.C. 112; 244 W.A.C. 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 2].

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. 25, footnotes 3, 11].

R. v. S.J.S. (1999), 183 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 4].

R. v. J.R.T., [1998] M.J. No. 345 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 5].

R. v. Kyllo, [1999] B.C.J. No. 717 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 6].

R. v. S.J.S. (2000), 199 Sask.R. 198; 232 W.A.C. 198 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 7].

R. v. Turner, [2001] N.J. No. 104 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 8].

R. v. Lebeau (1999), 47 M.V.R.(3d) 248 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 10].

R. v. Dickens (J.C.)(2001), 277 A.R. 248; 242 W.A.C. 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 10].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Monney (I.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652; 237 N.R. 157; 119 O.A.C. 272; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc. (1990), 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 530 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 32].

Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 210; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

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, consd. [para. 37].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 91; 17 C.R.(4th) 74; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 31, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Finlay and Grellette (1985), 11 O.A.C. 279; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 48 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1986] 1 S.C.R. ix; 65 N.R. 159; 15 O.A.C. 238, consd. [paras. 42, 46].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 44].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Bernardo (P.K.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 244; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. 50].

R. v. Hall (D.S.) (2000), 136 O.A.C. 20; 50 O.R.(3d) 257 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2001), 268 N.R. 396 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

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; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 657, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Garcia and Silva, [1970] 1 O.R. 821 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. McIntyre, [2000] O.J. No. 3939, refd to. [para. 71].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487.04 [para. 2]; sect. 487.05 [para. 30]; sect. 487.052, sect. 487.053, sect. 487.054, sect. 487.06 [para. 2].

DNA Identification Act, S.C. 1998, c. 37, sect. 3 [para. 24]; sect. 4 [para. 36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, D., Statement for the Record on Forensic DNA Analysis, before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee (2000), on line: F.B.I. p. 2 ( www.fbi.gov/congress/ congress00/ dadams.htm) [para. 14].

Bauman, C., The DNA Data Bank: Privacy Concerns and Safeguards (2000), 34 C.R. (5th) 39, p. 57 [para. 14].

Chayko, G.M., et al., Forensic Evidence in Canada (1999), p. 297 [para. 76].

Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (2nd. Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 7].

Zigayer, M., The Canadian DNA Data Bank (1998), in Actes du Colloque, Police, Techniques modernes d'enquête ou de surveillance et Droit de la preuve, Les Éditions Revue de droit, Université de Sherbrooke, generally [paras. 14, 16].

Counsel:

Michal Fairburn and Carol Ann Bauman, for the respondent;

Delmar Doucette and John Norris, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on May 8 and 9, 2001, by Weiler, Austin and Borins, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was released on August 23, 2001, by Weiler, J.A.