R. v. Chaisson (D.), (2006) 347 N.R. 282 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | March 15, 2006 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2006), 347 N.R. 282 (SCC);2006 SCC 11;[2006] 1 SCR 415;347 NR 282;206 CCC (3d) 1;[2006] SCJ No 11 (QL);139 CRR (2d) 26;256 Nfld & PEIR 181;263 DLR (4th) 577 |
R. v. Chaisson (D.) (2006), 347 N.R. 282 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. MR.044
David Chaisson (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(31155; 2006 SCC 11; 2006 CSC 11)
Indexed As: R. v. Chaisson (D.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
March 30, 2006.
Summary:
The accused was acquitted of a charge of possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act. The Crown appealed.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 249 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 252; 743 A.P.R. 252, allowed the appeal, quashed the acquittal and entered a conviction. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal.
Civil Rights - Topic 1646
Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - A police officer observed a vehicle parked off by itself in a parking lot - The officer saw the accused, sitting in the driver's seat, throw something onto the floor - The officer asked the accused and the passenger to get out of the vehicle but did not read them their rights - The officer saw a plastic bag on the floor that contained what appeared to be marijuana - He placed the accused and the passenger under arrest and searched the vehicle - He seized a total of 1,020 grams of marijuana - The officer brought the accused to the police station and read him his rights - The trial judge found that the accused's rights under ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter had been violated, excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) and entered an acquittal - The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal allowed a Crown appeal and entered a conviction, concluding that only s. 10(b) had been violated and that this violation did not warrant exclusion of the evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal and restored the acquittal - The Court of Appeal impermissibly substituted its own findings of fact for those of the trial judge - The trial judge was entitled, on the facts as he found them, to conclude that the accused's Charter rights had been violated and he committed no reviewable error in concluding that the cumulative effect of these violations warranted exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).
Civil Rights - Topic 1651
Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 3603
Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 4608
Right to counsel - General - Right to be advised of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 4806
Appeals - Indictable offences - General principles - Duty of appellate court - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 4973
Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Power to review and weigh evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].
Counsel:
Kenneth James Mahoney, for the appellant;
S. David Frankel, Q.C., and James C. Martin, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Baker Mahoney Law Firm, St. John's, Nfld. and Lab., for the appellant;
Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on March 15, 2006, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages by Fish, J., on March 30, 2006.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. White,
...34; R. v. Tim, 2022 SCC 12; R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34; R. v. Loewen, 2011 SCC 21; R. v. Chaisson, 2006 SCC 11; R. v. Boutros, 2018 ONCA 375; R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389; R. v. Kossick, 2018 SKCA 55; R. v. Yakubovsky-Rositsan, 2010 ONCA 748; R. v. Adler, ......
-
R. v. Harrison (B.),
...(1997), 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 33, 110]. R. v. Chaisson (D.) (2006), 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2006 SCC 11, refd to. [paras. 33, R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.) (199......
-
R. v. Husulak (W.N.), (2006) 283 Sask.R. 31 (QB)
...257, refd to. [para. 3]. R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 59 C.R.(3d) 108, refd to. [para. 3]. R. v. Chaisson (D.) (2006), 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2006 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 3]. R. v. Janzen (K.) (2005), 273 Sask.R. 66; 2......
-
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe et al., (2010) 407 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...(B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193; 2001 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 89]. R. v. Chaisson (D.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 415; 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 2006 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 89]. R. v. Sappier (D.M.) et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R.......
-
R. v. Harrison (B.),
...(1997), 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 33, 110]. R. v. Chaisson (D.) (2006), 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2006 SCC 11, refd to. [paras. 33, R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.) (199......
-
R. v. Husulak (W.N.), (2006) 283 Sask.R. 31 (QB)
...257, refd to. [para. 3]. R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 59 C.R.(3d) 108, refd to. [para. 3]. R. v. Chaisson (D.) (2006), 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2006 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 3]. R. v. Janzen (K.) (2005), 273 Sask.R. 66; 2......
-
R. v. White,
...34; R. v. Tim, 2022 SCC 12; R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34; R. v. Loewen, 2011 SCC 21; R. v. Chaisson, 2006 SCC 11; R. v. Boutros, 2018 ONCA 375; R. v. Pino, 2016 ONCA 389; R. v. Kossick, 2018 SKCA 55; R. v. Yakubovsky-Rositsan, 2010 ONCA 748; R. v. Adler, ......
-
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Lacombe et al., (2010) 407 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...(B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193; 2001 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 89]. R. v. Chaisson (D.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 415; 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 2006 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 89]. R. v. Sappier (D.M.) et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R.......
-
Powers of Detention
...Reports (6th) 27. 121 See, for example, R v Byfield (2005), 74 OR (3d) 206 (CA) or R v Chaisson , 2005 NLCA 55, rev’d on other grounds, 2006 SCC 11. See also Christina Skibinsky, “Regulating Mann in Canada” (2006) 69 Saskatchewan Law Review 197. 122 See Kang-Brown , above note 116, where on......
-
The Impact of the Charter
...argued. The first cases dealing with detention were 1 See, for example, R v Hawkins , [1993] 2 SCR 157 [ Hawkins ], and R v Chaisson , 2006 SCC 11. 2 R v Grant , 2009 SCC 32 [ Grant ]. 3 See, for example, R v MacDonald , 2014 SCC 3 at para 29, quoting R v Mann , 2004 SCC 52. 4 R v Collins ,......
-
Table of cases
...R v Chaif-Gust, 2011 BCCA 528 .................................................................147, 148 R v Chaisson, 2005 NLCA 55, rev’d 2006 SCC 11 ..............................146, 278, 376 R v Charles, 2012 SKCA 34 .............................................................................