R. v. Collymore (L.) et al., (1999) 123 O.A.C. 240 (CA)

• Judge: Brooke, Osborne and Goudge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: July 26, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 123 O.A.C. 240 (CA)

R. v. Collymore (L.) (1999), 123 O.A.C. 240 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.062

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Lawrence Collymore, Kevin Gayle, Maxine Nugent (respondents)

(C24694)

Indexed As: R. v. Collymore (L.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Brooke, Osborne and Goudge, JJ.A.

July 26, 1999.

Summary:

The accused were charged with conspiracy to import cocaine, trafficking in cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine. The trial judge excluded the cocaine as evidence because Customs did an un­reasonable search and seizure and the admis­sion of the cocaine would bring the ad­ministration of justice into disrepute. The accused was acquitted. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial.

Customs - Topic 3003

Search and seizure - General - Application of search and seizure provisions (Customs Act) - Customs cleared envelopes from Trinidad - A courier service, that unsuc­cessfully attempted delivery of the en­velopes, advised Customs that the inner envelope was wrapped in carbon paper and that they were suspicious - Customs, on return of the envelopes, opened the en­velopes and found cocaine - Collymore et al. were charged with conspiracy to import cocaine, trafficking in and possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine - The trial judge excluded the cocaine as evi­dence because Customs performed an un­reasonable search and seizure and the cocaine's admission would bring the ad­ministration of justice into disrepute - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal - The Customs officers opening the envelopes after clearing Cus­toms, but before delivery, was a reasonable search and seizure under ss. 99(1)(d) and 99(1)(e) of the Customs Act.

Customs - Topic 3025

Search and seizure - Search - Warrantless searches - [See Customs - Topic 3003 ].

Cases Noticed:

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, appld. [para. 25].

R. v. Monney (I.) (1999), 237 N.R. 157; 119 O.A.C. 272 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Jacques (J.R.) and Mitchell (M.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312; 202 N.R. 49; 180 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 458 A.P.R. 161; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Multiform Manufacturing Co. et autres v. R. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 624; 113 N.R. 373; 32 Q.A.C. 241; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 79 C.R.(3d) 390, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. McKay (T.C.) et al. (1992), 134 A.R. 188 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 35].

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, refd to. [para. 47].

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. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 5].

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1, sect. 99(1) [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dreidger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 168 to 172.

Counsel:

J.W. Leising and Antoinetta Issa, for the appellant;

Paul Slansky, for the respondent, Col­lymore;

Leslie Pringle, for the respondent, Nugent;

A.N. Robbins and Stephen R. Bernstein, for the respondent, Gayle.

This appeal was heard on October 14-15, 1998, by Brooke, Osborne and Goudge, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered on July 26, 1999, by Osborne, J.A.