R. v. Garcia-Machado (G.), 2015 ONCA 569

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Hoy, A.C.J.O., Feldman and Rouleau, JJ.A.
• Citation: 2015 ONCA 569,(2015), 337 O.A.C. 302 (CA)
• Date: 18 March 2015
• Subject Matter: CRIMINAL LAW,CIVIL RIGHTS,POLICE

R. v. Garcia-Machado (G.) (2015), 337 O.A.C. 302 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.005

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Gilberto Garcia-Machado (respondent)

(C58506; 2015 ONCA 569)

Indexed As: R. v. Garcia-Machado (G.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Hoy, A.C.J.O., Feldman and Rouleau, JJ.A.

August 7, 2015.

Summary:

The police, while investigating a single vehicle accident, executed a search warrant and seized the accused's hospital records relating to his treatment after the accident, and a vial of his blood. The investigating officer did not realize that s. 489.1(1) of the Criminal Code required him to report to a justice "as soon as was practical" that he had seized and was detaining the vial of blood and the records. The accused was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level causing bodily harm. The investigating officer filed the report required by s. 489.1(1) approximately 15 weeks after the seizure.

The Ontario Superior Court concluded that the officer's failure to report as soon as was practicable breached s. 8 of the Charter. The court excluded the seized evidence and found the accused not guilty. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the not guilty finding and ordered a new trial. Although the officer's failure to file a timely report breached s. 8, the trial judge erred in excluding the evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Unreasonable search and seizure - What constitutes - The police, while investigating a single vehicle accident, executed a search warrant and seized the accused's hospital records relating to his treatment after the accident, and a vial of his blood - The investigating officer did not realize that s. 489.1(1) of the Criminal Code required him to report to a justice "as soon as was practical" that he had seized and was detaining the vial of blood and the records - The accused was charged with impaired driving offences - The investigating officer filed the report required by s. 489.1(1) approximately 15 weeks after the seizure - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the s. 489.1(1) requirement to report to a justice as soon as practicable played a role in protecting an individual's residual, post-taking reasonable expectation of privacy - The officer's failure to comply with that obligation breached s. 8 of the Charter - However, the court characterized the breach as minor or technical - The breach had no real impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests - Society's interest in the adjudication on the merits favoured admission of the evidence - The evidence was admissible.

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Breath or blood samples - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1524

Property - Personal property - Search and seizure by police - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3193

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Failure to file report to a justice respecting search - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Police - Topic 2205

Duties - General duties - Statutory duties - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Police - Topic 3241

Powers - Seizure - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Backhouse (J.) (2005), 195 O.A.C. 80; 194 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Raponi (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 35; 323 N.R. 373; 354 A.R. 292; 329 W.A.C. 292; 2004 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Noseworthy, [1995] O.J. No. 1759 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 2].

R. v. Pringle, 2004 ONCJ 229, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 2].

R. v. Correia, 2005 ONCJ 435, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 2].

R. v. Cunliffe, [2006] O.J. No. 3580 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 2].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Villaroman (O.O.) (2012), 557 A.R. 1; 2012 ABQB 630, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Guiller (1985), 25 C.R.R. 273 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 3].

R. v. Placek (D.), [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1175; 2012 BCSC 1175, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 3].

R. v. Pickton (R.W.), [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. E45; 260 C.C.C.(3d) 232; 2006 BCSC 1098, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 3].

R. v. Butters (2014), 311 C.C.C.(3d) 516; 2014 ONCJ 228, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 3].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 82 N.R. 392; 23 O.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 4].

United States of America v. Mathurin, 2013 ONSC 2575, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 4].

R. v. Persaud, [2008] O.J. No. 5077 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 4].

R. v. Superior Pharmacy Ltd. et al. (1997), 33 O.T.C. 244 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 4].

Retention of Seized Goods and Barnable, P.C.J., Re (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 112; 178 A.P.R. 112 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 4].

Pattison (Jim) Industries Ltd. v. R., [1984] 2 F.C. 954 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 4].

R. v. Vienneau (R.) (2010), 361 N.B.R.(2d) 34; 931 A.P.R. 34; 2010 NBPC 19, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 4].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, appld. [para. 37].

R. v. Dore (D.) (2002), 162 O.A.C. 56; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Tse (Y.F.A.), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 531; 429 N.R. 109; 321 B.C.A.C. 1; 547 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Cole (R.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 34; 436 N.R. 102; 297 O.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Vu (T.L.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657; 451 N.R. 199; 345 B.C.A.C. 155; 589 W.A.C. 155; 2013 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 489.1(1) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hutchison, Scott C., and Bury, Michael P., Search and Seizure Law in Canada (2005) (Looseleaf Supp.), p. 18-1 [para. 26].

Counsel:

Jocelyn Speyer, for the appellant;

Carolyne Kerr, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 18, 2015, by Hoy, A.C.J.O., Feldman, and Rouleau, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Hoy, A.C.J.O., released the following decision for the court on August 7, 2015.