R. v. Gomboc (D.J.), (2010) 408 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 24, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 408 N.R. 1 (SCC);2010 SCC 55

R. v. Gomboc (D.J.) (2010), 408 N.R. 1 (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: [2010] N.R. TBEd. NO.046

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Daniel James Gomboc (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)

(33332; 2010 SCC 55; 2010 CSC 55)

Indexed As: R. v. Gomboc (D.J.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ.

November 24, 2010.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a search of his home under a search warrant, which was obtained based on data from a digital recording ammeter (DRA) that measured the flow of electricity into the accused's residence. A warrant was not obtained to use the DRA. The accused appealed, submitting that the use of a DRA without first obtaining a warrant constituted an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, O'Brien, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported (2009), 460 A.R. 150; 462 W.A.C. 150, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The electricity usage information obtained from the DRA was subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The collection of the data, and its disclosure to the police under the authority of the Code of Conduct Regulation under the Electrical Utilities Act, constituted a search and the search was unreasonable absent prior judicial authorization. A new trial was required to determine whether the remaining information relied on by the police, which was not improperly obtained, was sufficient to obtain a search warrant. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the conviction. Deschamps, J. (Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., concurring), held that, on the totality of the circumstances (including the statutory scheme that explicitly permitted disclosure of the data to police), there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in information about the pattern of electrical usage disclosed by the DRA. The DRA information did not disclose any biological core data that revealed intimate and private information for which persons rightly expected constitutional privacy protection. Abella, J. (Binnie and LeBel, JJ., concurring), held that if there was any objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, the legislative scheme authorizing the collection and turning over of the data to the police made that expectation of privacy objectively unreasonable. McLachlin, C.J.C., and Fish, J., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the accused had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and the legislation authorizing the collection and disclosure of the DRA information to police did not remove that expectation of privacy.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - A house showed signs of housing a marijuana grow operation, including window condensation, water-stained curtains, snow-free roof, considerable moisture vented through the chimney and under the deck, and unusual ice buildup around roof vents - The police asked the electrical service provider (Enmax) to install a digital recording ammeter (DRA) to record the electricity usage - The Code of Conduct Regulation under the Electrical Utilities Act authorized Enmax to give that information to the police unless a customer requested that Enmax keep that information confidential - The data, which was consistent with a marijuana grow operation, was used with other information to obtain a search warrant - The accused was convicted of drug offences - The accused appealed, arguing that obtaining a DRA without a prior warrant, and obtaining the search warrant using the DRA data, was an unreasonable search and seizure (Charter, s. 8) - The Alberta Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on the ground that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the electricity usage recorded by the DRA, even though the data did not provide information falling under the biographical core of personal information (number of occupants, their activities or details of their lifestyle, personal habits or beliefs, etc.) - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed a Crown appeal and restored the conviction - Deschamps, J. (Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., concurring), held that, on the totality of the circumstances (including the statutory scheme that explicitly permitted disclosure of the data to police), there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in information about the pattern of electrical usage disclosed by the DRA - The DRA information did not disclose any biological core data that revealed intimate and private information for which persons rightly expected constitutional privacy protection - Abella, J. (Binnie and LeBel, JJ., concurring), held that if there was any objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, the legislative scheme authorizing the collection and turning over of the data to the police made that expectation of privacy objectively unreasonable - McLachlin, C.J.C., and Fish, J., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the accused had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and the legislation authorizing the collection and disclosure of the DRA information to police did not remove that expectation of privacy.

Civil Rights - Topic 1642

Property - Search and seizure - Search - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Police - Topic 3183

Powers - Search - Electronic surveillance, video cameras, beepers, infra-red technology, load profile devices, digital recording ammeter, etc. - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Cheung (M.K.B.) et al. (2005), 267 Sask.R. 214; 2005 SKQB 283, revd. (2007), 293 Sask.R. 80; 397 W.A.C. 80; 2007 SKCA 51, refd to. [para. 14].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Tessling (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168; 2004 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Kang-Brown (G.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456; 373 N.R. 67; 432 A.R. 1; 424 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Patrick (R.S.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579; 387 N.R. 44; 454 A.R. 1; 455 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Johnston, [2002] A.J. No. 843 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Jarvis (W.J.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757; 295 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 1; 284 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, refd to. [para. 77].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Jackpine (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554; 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200; 2006 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Rodgers - see R. v. Jackpine (R.).

Charlebois v. Saint John (City), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 563; 342 N.R. 203; 292 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 761 A.P.R. 1; 2005 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227; 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 2002 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

R. v. Nolet (R.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 851; 403 N.R. 1; 350 Sask.R. 51; 487 W.A.C. 51; 2010 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 107].

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. 108].

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. 109].

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. 110].

R. v. Dersch (W.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768; 158 N.R. 375; 33 B.C.A.C. 269; 54 W.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 110].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3; 180 N.R. 241; 60 B.C.A.C. 1; 99 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 144].

Statutes Noticed:

Code of Conduct Regulation - see Electric Utilities Act Regulations (Alta.).

Electric Utilities Act Regulations (Alta.), Code of Conduct Regulation, Reg. 160/2003, sect. 1(e), sect. 10(3)(f) [para. 83].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lerner, Jack I., and Mulligan, Deirdre K., Taking the "Long View" on the Fourth Amendment: Stored Records and the Sanctity of the Home, [2008] Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 3, para. 41 [para. 132].

Ontario, Information and Privacy Commissioner, SmartPrivacy for the Smart Grid: Embedding Privacy into the Design of Electricity Conservation, The Future of Privacy Forum (2009), pp. 9 to 11 [para. 81].

Westin, Alan F., Privacy and Freedom (1970), p. 7 [para. 19].

Counsel:

Ronald C. Reimer and Susanne Boucher, for the appellant;

Charles R. Stewart, Q.C., and David Andrews, for the respondent;

Christine Tier, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario;

Brigitte Bussières and Gilles Laporte, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;

David S. Rose and John J. Navarrete, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;

Stewart & Andrews, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;

Neuberger Rose, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on May 19, 2010, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 24, 2010, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Deschamps, J. (Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 54;

Abella, J. (Binnie and LeBel, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 55 to 96;

McLachlin, C.J.C., and Fish, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 97 to 152.