R. v. Carrier (A.J.), (1996) 181 A.R. 284 (CA)

• Judge: Harradence, Côté and Picard, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: April 03, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 181 A.R. 284 (CA);1996 ABCA 145;181 AR 284;[1996] AJ No 317 (QL);116 WAC 284;36 CRR (2d) 310

R. v. Carrier (A.J.) (1996), 181 A.R. 284 (CA);

    116 W.A.C. 284

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Allie Joseph Carrier (appellant)

(Appeal No. 15826)

Indexed As: R. v. Carrier (A.J.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Harradence, Côté and Picard, JJ.A.

April 3, 1996.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of unlawful cultivation of a narcotic, possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in a narcotic. The trial judge held that the search warrant was invalid due to, inter alia, deficient information con­tained in the affidavit in support of the application for the warrant. The trial judge ruled that the accused's s. 8 Charter rights were violated, but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2). The accused appealed, claiming that the trial judge erred in failing to exclude the evidence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Harradence, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. There were no grounds for the trial judge to quash the search warrant, accordingly, there was no Charter breach. Alternatively, assuming a breach of s. 8 of the Charter, the trial judge did not err in refusing to exclude the evi­dence under s. 24(2).

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unrea­sonable search and seizure defined - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 2025 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police found 118 marijuana plants in a mobile home - The trial judge quashed the search warrant on the ground that there was insufficient evidence before the issuing judge to justify issuing a search warrant - The trial judge found a violation of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights, but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence - It was real evidence exist­ing irrespective of the Charter breach - The police acted in good faith in inadvert­ently leaving out certain information in support of the application to obtain the warrant - The court stated that police in a small town should not be expected "to have the drafting skills of a Chancery pleader or a solicitor" - Excluding the evidence would tarnish the image of the administration of justice much more than admitting the evidence - See paragraphs 69 to 77.

Civil Rights - Topic 8550

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Bring the administration of justice into disrepute - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2030

Search and seizure - Search warrants - Judicial review - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the scope of review of a Provincial Court judge's decision to issue a search warrant - The court stated that "it is settled law that the trial judge should not merely decide afresh whether a search warrant should issue, or should have issued when it did. Only fairly clear error lets the trial judge upset the Provincial Court's decision to issue a search warrant, and to quash that search warrant. The trial judge cannot quash the search warrant unless the Provincial Court judge who issued it could not in law have issued it. The trial judge cannot substitute his or her view for the Provincial Court judge's view. Even if the trial judge removes some of the original evidence for fraud, nondisclosure, con­trary evidence, etc., the question is the same: does enough remain that a Provin­cial Court judge could allow a search because of it?" - See paragraph 53.

Narcotic Control - Topic 2043

Search and seizure - Setting aside search warrants, grounds - Information, sufficiency of form and contents - A first-time source advised police that he saw what he believed to be potted marijuana plants in a lighted room without furniture in a mobile home - The police checked the power consumption and learned the mobile home used twice the power as the adjacent mobile home - The infor­mation in support of a search warrant failed to mention that the source believed the plants were marijuana, failed to state that the lights were high-voltage grow lights and the deponent failed to aver to the reliability of the source - The Provin­cial Court judge issued a search warrant - The trial judge quashed the warrant on the basis that the trial judge should not, on the evidence, have issued it - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in quashing the warrant - The police had enough facts to justify issuing a war­rant - The only deficiency was the failure to detail all known facts, leaving some things to be inferred by the issuing judge - The issuing judge's inference, on the evi­dence in the application, that the mobile home was being used to cultivate mari­juana was not unreasonable - Accordingly, there was no unreasonable search and seizure - See paragraphs 49 to 68.

Cases Noticed:

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. 5].

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. 9].

Semayne's Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91a; 77 E.R. 194, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1955] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 38 C.R.(4th) 330, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 460, refd to. [para. 11].

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. 11].

Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Canada and Minister of National Revenue et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338; 110 N.R. 171; 106 N.B.R.(2d) 408; 265 A.P.R. 408, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Otten (D.J.) (1994), 148 A.R. 378 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Times Square Book Store, Re (1985), 10 O.A.C. 105; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 503 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

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. 14].

R. v. Jackson (1983), 9 C.C.C.(3d) 125 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Conrad et al. (1989), 99 A.R. 197; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 307; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Hudon v. R. (1989), 74 Sask.R. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Turcotte (1987), 60 Sask.R. 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Borowski (1990), 66 Man.R.(2d) 49; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 87 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Bâtiments Fafard Inc. et autres c. Canada et autres (1991), 41 Q.A.C. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Société Radio-Canada v. Nouveau-Brunswick (Procureur général) et autres (1989), 104 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 261 A.P.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Carroll and Barker (1989), 88 N.S.R.(2d) 165; 225 A.P.R. 165; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. MacFarlane (K.R.) (1992), 100 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 302; 318 A.P.R. 302; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 54 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Kourtessis v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117, refd to. [para. 15].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz (1996), 193 N.R. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Madrid (L.A.) et al. (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 271; 78 W.A.C. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Sanchez (1994), 93 C.C.C.(3d) 357 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22].

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; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 46, 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. 26].

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, refd to. [para. 26].

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, refd to. [para. 26].

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. 26].

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. 29].

R. v. Acciavatti (M.J.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 137; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 26 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 29].

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; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 7; 28 C.R.R.(2d) 244, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 26 C.R.(4th) 289; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 297, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 37 C.R.R. 369, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Goncalves (H.M) (1992), 131 A.R. 68; 25 W.A.C. 68; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 240 (C.A.), revd. [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. 35].

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, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. c. Hiscock (G.); R. c. Sauvé (P.), [1992] R.J.Q. 895; 46 Q.A.C. 263; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Allen (B.J.) (1995), 174 A.R. 239; 102 W.A.C. 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) (1996), 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

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, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273, refd to. [para. 76].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 24 [para. 7].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 4, sect. 6 [para. 7].

Counsel:

K.R. McLeod, for the respondent;

D. Yanko, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard before Harradence, Côté and Picard, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On April 3, 1996, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Harradence, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 1 to 47;

Côté, J.A. (Picard, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 48 to 78.