R. v. Dell (B.M.), (2005) 367 A.R. 279 (CA)

• Judge: Côté, Hunt and Fruman, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: May 19, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 367 A.R. 279 (CA);2005 ABCA 246

R. v. Dell (B.M.) (2005), 367 A.R. 279 (CA);

    346 W.A.C. 279

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. JL.104

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Bryan Matthew Dell (appellant)

(0401-0241-A; 2005 ABCA 246)

Indexed As: R. v. Dell (B.M.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, Hunt and Fruman, JJ.A.

July 15, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was briefly detained and searched by bar staff in a private bar. Cocaine was discovered. The police were called and the accused was detained until they arrived. The accused was charged with possession of cocaine. The accused argued that the cocaine should be excluded because he had been arbitrarily detained (Charter, s. 9). The trial judge held that the Charter did not apply and convicted the accused. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that the Charter did not apply and dismissed the appeal. The parties agreed that the certificate of conviction wrongly stated that the conviction was for possession for the purposes of trafficking. The court amended the certificate to substitute a conviction for simple possession.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - A bouncer in a private bar observed the accused in a bathroom cubicle fiddling with a film canister - Suspecting drugs, the bouncer called his manager and detained the accused - The manager arrived within two and five minutes - The accused was searched and cocaine was discovered inside the cannister - The police were called and the accused was convicted of possession of cocaine - The accused argued his detention by the bouncer before the manager arrived was an arbitrary investigative detention contrary to s. 9 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that, unlike a citizen's arrest, investigative detention could not be reasonably construed to be a specific government function that had been delegated to private citizens - Therefore, the government function exception did not apply to extend Charter protection to investigative detention - The bouncer was not acting as a delegate of the government, carrying out its policies and programs - Therefore, the Charter did not apply to his actions in detaining the accused or the search and seizure flowing from the detention - See paragraphs 1 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

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; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Asante-Mensah (D.) (2003), 306 N.R. 289; 175 O.A.C. 317; 2003 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 4].

Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841; 225 N.R. 297, refd to. [para. 6].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189, refd to. [para. 7].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Lerke (1986), 67 A.R. 390; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 10, 30].

R. v. Parsons (B.D.) (2001), 284 A.R. 345; 2001 ABQB 42, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Jones (R.S.), [2004] N.B.J. No. 510 (Prov. Ct.), affd. (2005), 283 N.B.R.(2d) 239; 740 A.P.R. 239; 2005 NBQB 14, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Voege (W.) (1997), 47 O.T.C. 193; 31 M.V.R.(3d) 293 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Dean (1991), 5 C.R.(4th) 176 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Wilson (1994), 29 C.R.(4th) 302 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. N.S., [2004] O.J. No. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. A.M.J. (1999), 125 B.C.A.C. 238; 204 W.A.C. 238; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 213; 1999 BCCA 366, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Skeir (C.W.) (2005), 233 N.S.R.(2d) 298; 739 A.P.R. 298; 2005 NSCA 86, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Dean (1992), 127 A.R. 376; 20 W.A.C. 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Chang (J.C.) (2003), 339 A.R. 278; 312 W.A.C. 278; 180 C.C.C.(3d) 330 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Shafie (1989), 31 O.A.C. 362; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Walters v. Smith (W.H.) & Son (1913), 110 L.T. 345, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. M.R.M., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393; 233 N.R. 1; 171 N.S.R.(2d) 125; 519 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411, refd to. [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Clerk, John F., and Lindsell, The Law of Torts (18th Ed. 2000), paras. 3-57, 3-58 [para. 35]; 13-19 to 13-23 [para. 34]; 13-24, 13-37 to 13-39 [para. 35]; 14-02, 14-134 to 14-137 [para. 34]; 14-137 [para. 35].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (3rd Ed. 2003), pp. 54 to 59, 80 to 83 [para. 34].

Counsel:

R.A. Sigurdson, for the respondent;

J.M. Lutz, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on May 19, 2005, by Côté, Hunt and Fruman, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on July 15, 2005, at Calgary, Alberta, when the following opinions were filed:

Fruman, J.A. (Hunt, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 28;

Côté, J.A. - see paragraphs 29 to 54.