R. v. Colet,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntrye, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
• Citation: (1981), 35 N.R. 227 (SCC),19 CR (3d) 84,35 NR 227,[1981] 1 SCR 2,57 CCC (2d) 105,119 DLR (3d) 521,1981 CanLII 11 (SCC),[1981] 2 WWR 472,[1981] SCJ No 2 (QL)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 27 January 1981

R. v. Colet (1981), 35 N.R. 227 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Colet

Indexed As: R. v. Colet

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, Estey, McIntrye, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.

January 27, 1981.

Summary:

This case arose out of two counts of attempted murder and two counts of intending to cause bodily harm against the accused. The accused lived in a rudimentary shelter on his property in Prince Rupert, B.C., which the municipality ordered destroyed. The accused let it be known that he would not permit the destruction of his property and would defend it by all possible means. The police obtained a warrant to seize the accused's weapons under 105(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. When the police entered the accused's property and informed him that they had come to search, he violently resisted them. He was charged with attempted murder and intending to cause bodily harm. The British Columbia Supreme Court in a judgment reported, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 673, acquitted the accused on the ground that the warrant to seize did not include the right to search and that the police were trespassers, who the accused was entitled to resist. The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported, 46 C.C.C.(2d) 243, allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused for the reasons given by the trial judge.

Criminal Law - Topic 1297

Offences against the person - Murder - Attempted murder - Defences - Defence of property - Acting under a valid warrant to seize the weapons of the accused, police attempted to enter his land, informing the accused that they had come to search his home - The accused resisted violently, as he had warned he would, and was charged with attempted murder and intending to cause bodily harm - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the acquittal of the accused - The Court held that the warrant to seize did not include the right to search and that the police were accordingly trespassers, who accused was entitled to resist.

Criminal Law - Topic 3163

Special powers - Powers of seizure - Extent of power - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a warrant to seize issued under 105(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, did not include the right to search.

Statutes - Topic 1569

Interpretation - Implied meaning - Express language necessary - Infringing on public, private or common law rights - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a warrant to seize issued under 105(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, did not include the right to search a person's home - The court held that authorization for such an invasion of the common law right to security of property must be made in express terms and could not be found by implication in 105(1) - See paragraphs 15 to 16.

Words and Phrases

Seize - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a warrant to seize issued under 105(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, did not include the right to search a person's home.

Cases Noticed:

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

Eccles v. Bourque, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, consd. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 105(1) [para. 4].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 26 [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, [Twelfth Edition] p. 251 [para. 16].

Counsel:

Jay Clarke, for the appellant;

W.G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., and M.G.A. Angene, for the respondent.

This case was heard on December 2, 1980, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., RITCHIE, DICKSON, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 27, 1981, RITCHIE, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: