R. v. Grant (D.)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Citation: (1993), 159 N.R. 161 (SCC),20 WCB (2d) 590,57 WAC 1,[1993] 8 WWR 257,[1993] 3 SCR 223,[1993] SCJ No 98 (QL),35 BCAC 1,1993 CanLII 68 (SCC),159 NR 161,17 CRR (2d) 269,24 CR (4th) 1,AZ-93111108,[1993] ACS no 98,84 CCC (3d) 173,JE 93-1669
• Date: 02 April 1993

R. v. Grant (D.) (1993), 159 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

R. (appellant) v. David Angelo Grant (respondent) and Robert Wallace Wiley (intervener)

(23075)

Indexed As: R. v. Grant (D.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, P.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci

and Major, JJ.

September 30, 1993.

Summary:

The accused Grant was charged with unlawfully cultivating marihuana and pos­session of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after police found 80 marihuana plants growing in the basement of a house he occupied, but did not live in. The police had reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was cultivating marihuana in the basement and with no urgency conducted a warrantless perimeter search for further information. Based on information from the perimeter search and other information, the police obtained a search warrant under s. 487 of the Criminal Code (instead of s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act), executed it during daylight and found the plants. The British Columbia Supreme Court acquitted the accused after ruling that the perimeter search was improper and that the search warrant was invalid, because it should have been obtained under s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a judgment reported 14 B.C.A.C. 94; 26 W.A.C. 94; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 315; 14 C.R.(3d) 260; 11 C.R.R.(2d) 159. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Court affirmed that the perimeter search violated the accused's rights under s. 8 of the Charter because there were no exigent circumstances, but held that the search warrant was valid, where sufficient information supported it without the information yielded by the illegal perimeter search and where applying for the warrant under s. 487 was perfectly permissible. The Court held that the evi­dence found was admissible despite the Charter violation, because the evidence was real, the police in good faith thought the perimeter search was lawful, the search was reasonably carried out and the offence charged was serious, so that exclusion of the evidence would tend to bring the adminis­tration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - Police had reasonable grounds for believ­ing that the accused was cultivating mari­huana - After a warrantless perimeter search of the accused's non-residential property, which violated s. 8 of the Charter because there were no exigent circum­stances, the police used information from the search and other information to obtain a search warrant under s. 487 of the Crim­inal Code, instead of s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act - The Supreme Court of Canada held that obtaining the warrant under the Criminal Code instead of the Narcotic Control Act was permissible and further that the warrant was valid, where it was supported by sufficient information without the information from the illegal perimeter search - See paragraphs 39 to 54.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreas­onable search and seizure defined - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1654 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1654

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Perimeter searches - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act "may validly authorize a search or seizure without warrant in exigent circumstances which render it impracticable to obtain a warrant. Exigent circumstances will gen­erally be held to exist if there is an immi­nent danger of the loss, removal, destruc­tion or disappearance of the evidence if the search or seizure is delayed. While the fact that the evidence sought is believed to be present on a motor vehicle, water vessel, aircraft or other fast moving vehicle will often create exigent circumstances, no blanket exception exists for such convey­ances." - See paragraphs 20 to 33 - The Court read down s. 10 to preserve its constitutionality - See paragraphs 34 to 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 1654

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Perimeter searches - Acting on reasonable grounds, but no urgency, the police conducted a warrantless perimeter search of the accus­ed's non-residential property - They used information from the search and other information to obtain a search warrant under the Criminal Code, s. 487, instead of the Narcotic Control Act, s. 10 - Mari­huana plants found - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the perimeter search violated s. 8 of the Charter because there were no exigent circumstances, but held that the search warrant was valid, where sufficient information supported it without the information from the illegal perimeter search - The Court held that the evidence found was admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter, because to exclude it would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1654 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.18

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Reading down - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1654 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2028

Search and seizure - Search warrants - Issuance of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1604 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2065

Search and seizure - Warrantless searches - Perimeter searches - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1654 ].

Statutes - Topic 1624

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Other statutes - Prior statutes respecting same subject matter - The Supreme Court of Canada in construing the effect of s. 487 of the Criminal Code considered prior versions of the section - See paragraphs 40 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, reving. 46 C.C.C.(3d) 194 (B.C.C.A.), appld. [paras. 10, 50, 61].

Multiform Manufacturing Co. et autres v. R. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 624; 113 N.R. 373; 32 Q.A.C. 241, appld. [paras. 11, 39, 41.

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, appld. [paras. 12, 60].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, appld. [paras. 14, 60].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.) (1991), 9 B.C.A.C. 271; 19 W.A.C. 271 (C.A.), affd. 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Kokesch (1988), 46 C.C.C.(3d) 194 (B.C.C.A.), appld. [para. 15].

R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), appld. [para. 22].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, appld. [para. 23].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 24].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385, refd to. [para. 24].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270, refd to. [para. 24].

Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Colet, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 2; 35 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, consd. [paras. 29, 63].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. I.D.D. (1987), 60 Sask.R. 72; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, appld. [para. 34].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, appld. [para. 36].

R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163, appld. [para. 39].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273, appld. [paras. 39, 56].

R. v. Goodbaum (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 473 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 40].

Campbell v. Clough (1979), 23 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 249; 61 A.P.R. 249 (P.E.I.S.C.), consd. [para. 40].

R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161, appld. [para. 49].

R. v. Sismey (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 281 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 51].

R. v. Donaldson (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 294 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 51].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, appld. [para. 56].

R. v. Brick (1989), 19 M.V.R.(2d) 158 (Alta. C.A.), appld. [para. 58].

R. v. Langdon (1992), 74 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (Nfld. C.A.), appld. [para. 58].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, appld. [para. 59].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, appld. [para. 59].

Statutes Noticed:

Bankruptcy Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-3, sect. 6 [para. 41].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 24(2) [para. 19].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 443(1)(a) [para. 40].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487 [para. 19].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 34 [para. 41].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 10, sect. 12 [para. 19].

Counsel:

S. David Frankel, Q.C., for the appellant Crown;

David M. Rosenberg and Paul Rosenberg, for the respondent accused;

Greg Cranston, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant Crown;

Rosenberg & Rosenberg, Vancouver, Brit­ish Columbia, for the respondent accused;

Greg Cranston, Vancouver, British Colum­bia, for the intervener.

This case was heard on April 2, 1993, before Lamer, P.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On September 30, 1993, Sopinka, J., delivered the following judg­ment for the court in both official lan­guages.