R. v. Harrison (B.),

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: O'Connor, A.C.J.O., MacPherson and Cronk, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2008 ONCA 85
• Citation: (2008), 233 O.A.C. 211 (CA),2008 ONCA 85,89 OR (3d) 161,231 CCC (3d) 118,55 CR (6th) 39,[2008] CarswellOnt 591,[2008] OJ No 427 (QL),167 CRR (2d) 291,233 OAC 211,77 WCB (2d) 528,[2008] O.J. No 427 (QL),233 O.A.C. 211,89 O.R. (3d) 161,(2008), 233 OAC 211 (CA)
• Date: 05 September 2007
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

R. v. Harrison (B.) (2008), 233 O.A.C. 211 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.031

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Bradley Harrison (appellant)

(C45780; 2008 ONCA 85)

Indexed As: R. v. Harrison (B.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

O'Connor, A.C.J.O., MacPherson and Cronk, JJ.A.

February 11, 2008.

Summary:

The accused was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine. He appealed against the conviction, arguing that the 35 kg of cocaine seized in the vehicle driven by him should not have been admitted into evidence because his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Cronk, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was driving a rented vehicle from Vancouver to Toronto - The vehicle also carried a passenger and 35 kg of cocaine worth between $2,463,000 and $4,575,000 on the street - The vehicle was rented in the passenger's name - It had an Alberta licence plate on the back but none in the front - The accused was driving at the speed limit when, near Kirkland Lake, Ontario, a police officer in a cruiser decided to stop the vehicle for failure to have a front licence plate - The officer subsequently realized that the vehicle had an Alberta plate and that it was not an offence in Alberta to drive a vehicle without a front licence plate - Nevertheless, for reasons of "integrity for police", the officer went ahead with stopping the vehicle - The officer asked if there were drugs on board - The passenger nervously answered "yeah" - The officer seized the cocaine - The accused was charged with trafficking - An issue arose as to the admissibility of the cocaine - The trial judge found that there had been "extremely serious breaches" of the accused's ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights but nevertheless admitted the cocaine, ruling that the exclusion of the evidence would cause the administration of justice to fall into greater disrepute than its inclusion - The judge said: "As blatant as the arresting officer's behaviour was in conducting the detention and search and as brazen as his explanation for his actions in this court, they pale in comparison to the criminality involved in the possession for the purposes of distribution of 77 pounds of cocaine ..." - The accused was convicted - The Ontario Court of Appeal, Cronk, J.A., dissenting, upheld the admissibility ruling and the conviction, adding that the Charter breaches were not deliberate and not the result of an institutional policy - Also, the effect of the search on the accused's privacy interest was not great - This was not a search of a person, a residence or an office - "The search was of a car, nothing more" - See paragraphs 1 to 78.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collins (1987), 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), consd. [paras. 9, 83].

R. v. D.W. (1991), 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 11].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.) (2003), 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 174 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), consd. [paras. 29, 104].

R. v. Mann (P.H.) (2004), 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 308 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 29]; refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1989), 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 33, 110].

R. v. Mellenthin (1992), 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 33, 110].

R. v. Silveira (A.) (1995), 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 450 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33]; consd. [para. 110].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.) (1997), 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 33, 110].

R. v. Chaisson (D.) (2006), 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2006 SCC 11, refd to. [paras. 33, 121].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.) (1997), 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 45, 109].

R. v. Calderon (2004), 188 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 45, 130].

R. v. Alkins (C.) (2007), 223 O.A.C. 41; 218 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 45, 128].

R. v. L.B. (2007), 227 O.A.C. 132; 86 O.R.(3d) 730 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 45, 131].

R. v. Evans (W.G.) (1991), 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Kitaitchik (A.) (2002), 161 O.A.C. 169; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Puskas (J.F.) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 310; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 548 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 54, 140, footnote 3].

R. v. Jacoy (1988), 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 65].

R. v. Smith (E.D.) (1987), 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 65].

R. v. To (W.H.) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 223; 28 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), consd. [para. 75].

R. v. Caprara (R.) (2006), 211 O.A.C. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

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

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al. (2002), 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 108].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Greffe (1990), 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Wise (1992), 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Harris (M.) (2007), 228 O.A.C. 241; 87 O.R.(3d) 214 (C.A.), consd. [para. 111].

R. v. Nguyen (T.H.T.) (2007), 229 O.A.C. 71 (C.A.), consd. [para. 111].

R. v. Grant (D.) (2006), 213 O.A.C. 127; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 250 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted [2007] 372 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 111].

R. v. Shankar (C.C.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.) (1998), 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.) (1995), 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 143].

R. v. Kokesch (1990), 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 149].

R. v. Hynes (D.W.) (2001), 278 N.R. 299; 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 624 A.P.R. 181; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 359 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 159].

Olmstead v. United States of America (1928), 277 U.S. 438 (U.S.S.C.), consd. [para. 162].

R. v. Clayton (W.) et al. (2007), 364 N.R. 199; 227 O.A.C. 314 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 163].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 165, footnote 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24(2) [para. 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf Supp.), § 41.9(a) [para. 63].

Roach, Kent, Constitutional Remedies in Canada (1994), para. 10.625 [para. 36].

Counsel:

Marie Henein and Margaret Bojarowska, for the appellant;

Rick Visca, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 5, 2007, by O'Connor, A.C.J.O., MacPherson and Cronk, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was released on February 11, 2008, and the following reasons were filed:

O'Connor, A.C.J.O., and MacPherson, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 78;

Cronk, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 79 to 166.