R. v. Goodine (M.),

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Richard, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2006 NBCA 109
• Citation: (2006), 307 N.B.R.(2d) 178 (CA),2006 NBCA 109,307 NBR (2d) 178,214 CCC (3d) 385,[2006] NBJ No 496 (QL),149 CRR (2d) 48,[2006] N.B.J. No 496 (QL),307 N.B.R.(2d) 178,(2006), 307 NBR(2d) 178 (CA),307 NBR(2d) 178
• Date: 21 September 2006
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)

R. v. Goodine (M.) (2006), 307 N.B.R.(2d) 178 (CA);

    307 R.N.-B.(2e) 178; 795 A.P.R. 178

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: [2006] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.045

Michael Goodine (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(16/06/CA; 2006 NBCA 109)

Indexed As: R. v. Goodine (M.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Richard, JJ.A.

September 21, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of a tobacco product that was not stamped as required by the Excise Act. His main argu­ment was that his arrest was unlawful be­cause the officers acted upon information emanating exclusively from an untested anonymous tipster whose allegation of pos­session by the accused of contraband tobacco products was uncorroborated by independent sources. As such, his s. 9 Charter rights were violated and the evidence gathered after his arrest should be excluded.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court, in a judgment not reported in this series of re­ports, convicted the accused. The accused appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - An accused argued, inter alia, that in all cases where a tip from an untested anony­mous source was shown to be the sole basis upon which a warrantless arrest was effected and that tip was corroborated only by "innocent" or "neutral" facts, a court had to conclude, as a matter of law, that the arresting officers did not act upon reasonable and probable grounds - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected the argument - The issue for trial judges was always whether, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, sufficient grounds existed to lawfully carry out the arrest - There was no "hard and fast rule" - What was required was a case-specific determination that reflected an assessment of the totality of the circumstances appar­ent to the arresting officers at the time they took action - See paragraphs 19 and 20.

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - The accused was charged with possession of a tobacco product that was not stamped as required by the Excise Act - The ac­cused argued that his warrantless arrest was unlawful because the officers had acted upon information emanating exclu­sively from an untested anonymous tipster (Crime Stoppers) whose allegation of possession by the accused of contraband tobacco products was uncorroborated by independent sources - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not commit an error of law in rejecting the proposition that the tip could not pro­vide the requisite reasonable and probable grounds because its "crim­inal" aspect had not been independently corroborated - Corroboration of that nature was not neces­sary - There was not a shred of evidence that the tipster was actuated by an improp­er motive - The "neutral" data that had been corroborated by police indi­cated that the tipster was closely ac­quainted with the accused and, to a signifi­cant extent, privy to the criminal activity being reported - No one could point to any pre-arrest statement by the tipster that might cast doubt on his or her reliability - See paragraphs 19 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Luu (T.T.T.) et al. (2006), 222 B.C.A.C. 275; 368 W.A.C. 275; 2006 BCCA 73, leave to appeal dismissed (2006), 358 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 21].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Re­venue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270, refd to. [para. 21].

Chartier v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 474; 27 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Golub (D.J.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 176; 34 O.R.(3d) 743 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 571, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Charlton (T.S.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 272; 27 W.A.C. 272 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

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. 25].

R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 46; 38 O.R.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Campbell (D.B.) (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 117; 304 W.A.C. 117; 175 C.C.C.(3d) 452; 2003 MBCA 76, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Okeke (C.E.) (1999), 106 O.T.C. 302 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Allain (S.) (1998), 205 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 523 A.P.R. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Cormier (R.D.) (1995), 166 N.B.R.(2d) 5; 425 A.P.R. 5 (C.A.), dist. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Patrick E. Hurley, Q.C., for the appellant;

R. Keith Ward, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 21, 2006, by Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Richard, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Drapeau, C.J.N.B., rendered the following oral reasons for judgment for the court on September 21, 2006, and written reasons were delivered on November 23, 2006.