R. v. Caines (V.S.), (2012) 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 328 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 12, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2012), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 328 (NLPC);2011 NLPC 1311

R. v. Caines (V.S.) (2012), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 328 (NLPC);

    982 A.P.R. 328

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JA.013

Her Majesty the Queen v. Vander Selby Caines

(2011 NLPC 1311PA00114)

Indexed As: R. v. Caines (V.S.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

January 3, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charge with possession of contraband tobacco contrary to s. 32 of the Excise Act and s. 32(9) of the Revenue Administration Act. The accused applied for exclusion of the tobacco found in his motor vehicle under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the basis of violations of his ss. 8, 9 and 10(a) Charter rights.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court allowed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 1651

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court summarized the applicable legal principles involved in the stopping and searching of motor vehicles - See paragraph 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 3142

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Arrest or detention - Right to be informed of reasons for (Charter, s. 10(a)) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - Police received an anonymous tip about suspicious behaviour in a Walmart parking lot, i.e., the exchange of an envelope and two boxes - The tip identified a blue Mercury Grand Marquis - Police discovered that the Marquis belonged to the accused - Later, Constable Sheppard stopped the Marquis because "it was driving too slow" (Highway Traffic Act, s. 111) - Cst. Sheppard asked the accused to move his vehicle off the highway but did not tell him why - Csts. Sheppard and Maher searched the vehicle - The boxes contained contraband tobacco - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court found that the accused's s. 9 Charter right to be free of arbitrary detention was violated - The accused was operating at or close to the maximum speed allowed while being followed by a police vehicle - In addition, the evidence did not establish that the accused's operation of the motor vehicle was impeding or blocking the normal and reasonable movement of traffic then existing on a highway - The intent of the stop was to create an opportunity to investigate and search for drugs or contraband and it had nothing to do with highway enforcement - Cst. Sheppard stopped the accused's vehicle in order to gather evidence in relation to what transpired at the parking lot at Walmart - It had nothing to do with s. 111 of the Highway Traffic Act - There was also a breach of s. 10(a) of the Charter when Cst. Sheppard declined to inform the accused of the real reason he had stopped him - See paragraphs 46 to 58.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights or Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police received an anonymous tip about suspicious behaviour in a Walmart parking lot, i.e., the exchange of an envelope and two boxes - The tip identified a blue Mercury Grand Marquis - Police discovered that the Marquis belonged to the accused - Later, Constable Sheppard stopped the Marquis because "it was driving too slow" (Highway Traffic Act, s. 111) - Cst. Sheppard asked the accused to move his vehicle off the highway but did not tell him why - Csts. Sheppard and Maher searched the vehicle - The boxes contained contraband tobacco - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court found violations of ss. 9 and 10(a) of the Charter - The violations were deliberate and flagrant - They were not a result of mistake or good faith - The violation of s. 9 infringed the purpose of the provision and legislation was used as a ruse - However, Cst. Sheppard did fully inform the accused of his right to contact counsel and reliable and relevant evidences essential to the Crown's case was seized - Admission of the evidence obtained here as a result of the search would send a message that the judiciary condoned serious state misconduct - There was a strong need for the court to disassociate itself from the conduct of the police - Admission of the evidence obtained here as a result of the search of the accused's vehicle would negatively effect the long-term repute of the administration of justice - Balancing the three lines of inquiry in R. v. Grant (D.) (SCC 2009), the court concluded that this was a case which required an exclusionary order - The evidence obtained by the police as a result of the search of the accused's motor vehicle was excluded from trial - See paragraphs 59 to 78.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Schrenk (C.A.) (2010), 255 Man.R.(2d) 12; 486 W.A.C. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Grunwald (R.) (2010), 289 B.C.A.C. 23; 489 W.A.C. 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Hillgardener (A.R.) (2010), 477 A.R. 200; 483 W.A.C. 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 21].

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, consd. [para. 21].

R. v. Newell (R.) (2009), 284 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 68; 875 A.P.R. 68 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

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

R. v. Jackpine (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554; 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200; 2006 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Nolet (R.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 851; 403 N.R. 1; 350 Sask.R. 51; 487 W.A.C. 51, refd to. [para. 22].

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. 22].

R. v. Shankar (C.C.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Polashek (P.K.) (1999), 118 O.A.C. 312; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Alkins (C.) (2007), 223 O.A.C. 41; 218 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Majedi (M.F.) (2009), 272 B.C.A.C. 220; 459 W.A.C. 220; 192 C.R.R.(2d) 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Loewen (D.J.) (2011), 415 N.R. 397; 502 A.R. 3; 517 W.A.C. 3; 2011 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Tran (L.V.) (2010), 482 A.R. 357; 490 W.A.C. 357; 2010 ABCA 211, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Phengchanh (K.), [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 484 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Penton, [2009] N.J. No. 219 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Clayton (W.) et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 725; 364 N.R. 199; 227 O.A.C. 314, consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Adams (P.) (2011), 303 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 247; 941 A.P.R. 247; 2011 NLCA 3, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Chaif-Gust (J.B.) (2011), 314 B.C.A.C. 195; 534 W.A.C. 195; 2011 BCCA 528, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Klimchuk (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 26; 9 W.A.C. 26; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

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. 31].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 32].

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, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Warford (R.G.) (2001), 207 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 263; 620 A.P.R. 263; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 309 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. S.T.P. (2009), 281 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 893 A.P.R. 1; 2009 NSCA 86, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Cianchino, [2010] O.J. No. 3162 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Chamberlain (R.A.) (1999), 222 N.B.R.(2d) 393; 570 A.P.R. 393 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Young v. Williams et al. (1997), 183 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 333; 556 A.P.R. 333 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 1].

R. v. Martin, [2010] N.J. No. 227 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Caprara (R.) (2006), 211 O.A.C. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Annett (1984), 6 O.A.C. 302; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Johnson (B.) (2009), 254 O.A.C. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Kang-Brown (G.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456; 373 N.R. 67; 432 A.R. 1; 424 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. McCabe (C.) (2008), 280 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 250; 859 A.P.R. 250; 238 C.C.C.(3d) 33 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Munro (B.L.) (2005), 220 B.C.A.C. 102; 362 W.A.C. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Tontarelli (R.) (2009), 348 N.B.R.(2d) 41; 897 A.P.R. 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Tosczak (L.M.) (2010), 343 Sask.R. 295; 472 W.A.C. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Le (N.O.) (2001), 160 B.C.A.C. 46; 261 W.A.C. 46; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 146 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Bulmer (D.L.) (2005), 269 Sask.R. 137; 357 W.A.C. 137; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 363 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Pontari (2007), 161 C.R.R.(2d) 233 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Evans (W.G.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.) (1997), 207 N.R. 215; 152 Sask.R. 1; 140 W.A.C. 1; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Collins, [2009] N.J. No. 134 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Wheeler (F.) (2004), 241 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 241; 716 A.P.R. 241 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Harrison (B.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494; 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358, refd to. [para. 49].

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. 51].

R. v. Whincup (W.) (2012), 314 B.C.A.C. 75; 534 W.A.C. 75; 2011 BCCA 520, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Côté (A.) (2011), 421 N.R. 112; 2011 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Penney (G.) (2011), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73; 982 A.P.R. 73 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Giulioni (A.) et al. (2011), 313 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 220; 974 A.P.R. 220 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 70].

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. 76].

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. 76].

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. 76].

R. v. Piercey (J.) (2011), 312 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 87; 971 A.P.R. 87 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 76].

Counsel:

D. Mills, Q.C., for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada;

M. Fox, for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Newfoundland;

M. Bennett, for Mr. Caines.

This application was heard on August 22, November 18 and December 12, 2011, at Corner Brook, Nfld. and Lab., by Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 3, 2012.