R. v. Hatton (R.A.), (2011) 509 A.R. 262 (QB)

• Judge: Yamauchi, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 07, 2011
• Citations: (2011), 509 A.R. 262 (QB);2011 ABQB 242

R. v. Hatton (R.A.) (2011), 509 A.R. 262 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. AP.039

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent/Crown) v. Royce Andrew Hatton (applicant/accused)

(090559584Q1; 2011 ABQB 242)

Indexed As: R. v. Hatton (R.A.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of St. Paul

Yamauchi, J.

April 7, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was charged with multiple counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown relied on evidence obtained from a search authorized by a "Telewarrant". The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude all evidence obtained in the search, arguing that he was subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. Particularly the accused argued that the Telewarrant was defective in two ways: (1) the police submitted the Information to Obtain (ITO) by fax when it was practicable for them to present the ITO in person before a Justice of the Peace or Provincial Court judge and (2) information in the ITO was inaccurate or of uncertain reliability, leaving the balance of the information insufficient to constituted reasonable grounds upon which to issue the warrant.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the warrant was invalid, resulting in an unreasonable search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. After balancing the factors set out in R. v. Grant (SCC), the court excluded the evidence obtained under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3093 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3093 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3057

Special powers - Search warrants - Telewarrants - An R.C.M.P. officer faxed an Information to Obtain a search warrant (ITO) to a Justice of the Peace - Section 487.1 of the Criminal Code authorized a "telewarrant" where it was "impracticable" to appear in person before the Justice of the Peace - Section 487.1(4) set out the information that "shall" be included in the ITO - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that "shall" was mandatory, not permissive - Further, since a faxed ITO did not give the Justice of the Peace an opportunity to question the officer to obtain additional information where clarification or amplification was required, there was a higher standard of disclosure than where an officer appeared personally or by phone - See paragraphs 27 to 42.

Criminal Law - Topic 3057

Special powers - Search warrants - Telewarrants - An R.C.M.P. officer in Bonnyville, Alberta, faxed an Information to Obtain a search warrant (ITO) to a Justice of the Peace in Edmonton - Section 487.1 of the Criminal Code authorized a "telewarrant" where it was "impracticable" to appear in person before the Justice of the Peace - The officer testified that Provincial Court judges sat in Bonnyville only every second Tuesday and Thursday - The ITO was prepared on a Friday - The officer did not specifically determine whether there was a Justice of the Peace or Provincial Court judge in Bonnyville or St. Paul (45 minutes away) before faxing the ITO to Edmonton - At issue was whether it was "impracticable" to appear in person with the ITO - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the submission that "impracticable" meant impossible to carry out or virtual impossibility - For purposes of s. 487.1, "impracticable" meant "very difficult or not practical in a particular situation" (i.e., impractical) - Where an officer had a reasonable basis to conclude that a Justice of the Peace or a Provincial Court judge was not available within a relatively short travel distance, then personal attendance was "impracticable" - The court held that the "impracticable" requirement of s. 487.1(4) was not satisfied where the officer "provided a statement, but not the circumstances why the absence of a presiding justice of the peace or judge makes this 'impracticable'" - See paragraphs 47 to 68.

Criminal Law - Topic 3093

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - What constitutes reasonable grounds - An R.C.M.P. officer faxed an Information to Obtain a search warrant to a Justice of the Peace - Although the officer swore personal knowledge of the information therein, most of the information was double hearsay: provided by another officer who was provided the information by two informants - The swearing officer did not disclose the lack of personal knowledge, nor did she disclose that the R.C.M.P. undertook no investigative steps to verify the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by the informants - Many of the informational statements in the ITO were conclusory, lacking corroborating information - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was insufficient reliable information upon which the Justice of the Peace could find reasonable grounds to issue a search warrant - The information was not corroborated by police investigation - There was no information provided, from the person possessing that information, that the informants were credible - The ITO lacked informational detail - The court stated that the purpose of the ITO was "tell the judge what you believe that your search will find, and then explain to the judge honestly and objectively why you believe that is what will be found" - The search warrant was invalid, resulting in an unreasonable search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The court, after balancing the factors set out in R. v. Grant (SCC), excluded the evidence obtained under s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 69 to 138.

Criminal Law - Topic 3097

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - Contents of information or application for issue of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3093 ].

Statutes - Topic 2418

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - General principles - "Should" and "shall" - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 3057 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gow (N.T.) (2010), 501 A.R. 347; 259 C.C.C.(3d) 364; 2010 ABQB 564, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Hover (1999), 237 A.R. 30; 197 W.A.C. 30; 1999 ABCA 123, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Ling (M.D.) (2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 281; 449 W.A.C. 281; 241 C.C.C.(3d) 409; 2009 BCCA 70, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Morelli (U.P.) - see R. v. U.P.M.

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. 42].

R. v. Caissey (L.M.) (2007), 422 A.R. 208; 415 W.A.C. 208; 2007 ABCA 380; 299 D.L.R.(4th) 432, affd. [2008] 3 S.C.R. 451; 382 N.R. 198; 446 A.R. 397; 442 W.A.C. 397; 2008 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Carrier (A.J.) (1996), 181 A.R. 284; 116 W.A.C. 284; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Berry (J.M) et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 1742; 56 W.C.B.(2d) 630; 2002 BCSC 1742, dist. [para. 29].

R. v. Young (J.W.) (2008), 264 B.C.A.C. 1; 445 W.A.C. 1; 2008 BCCA 513, dist. [para. 50].

R. v. Phillips (I.L.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 1797; 65 W.C.B.(2d) 471; 2004 BCSC 1797, dist. [para. 51].

R. v. Nguyen (Q.H.) (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 91; 450 W.A.C. 91; 2009 BCAC 89, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 1989 CarswellOnt 111, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Koppang (D.P.) (2004), 357 A.R. 383; 334 W.A.C. 383; 2004 ABCA 334, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Hosie (G.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 281; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Sutherland (M.) (2000), 139 O.A.C. 53; 52 O.R.(3d) 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135, refd to. [para. 74].

Lubell, Re (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 188 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Luong (G.V.) (2000), 271 A.R. 368; 234 W.A.C. 368; 2000 ABCA 301, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Campbell (N.M.) (2010), 270 O.A.C. 349; 2010 ONCA 588, refd to. [para. 89].

Quebec (Procureur général) v. Laroche et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 708; 295 N.R. 291; 219 D.L.R.(4th) 723, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Nguyen (K.T.) (2007), 241 B.C.A.C. 244; 399 W.A.C. 244; 2007 BCCA 264, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Saunders (G.T.) (2003), 232 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 22; 690 A.P.R. 22; 181 C.C.C.(3d) 268; 2003 NLCA 63, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Schindler (J.F.) (2001), 277 A.R. 98; 242 W.A.C. 98; 2001 ABCA 22, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Chen (G.K.-Y.) - see R. v. Bacon (J.D.) et al.

R. v. Bacon (J.D.) et al. (2010), 285 B.C.A.C. 108; 482 W.A.C. 108; 2010 BCCA 135, leave to appeal refused [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 213, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Richter, [1994] 7 W.W.R. 753; 120 Sask.R. 257; 68 W.A.C. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Hillgardener (A.R.) (2010), 477 A.R. 200; 483 W.A.C. 200; 252 C.C.C.(3d) 486; 2010 ABCA 80, refd to. [para. 103].

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. 113].

R. v. Sandhu (A.S.) (2011), 274 O.A.C. 278; 2011 ONCA 124, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Harrison (B.) (2009), 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358; 2009 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Dhillon (B.) (2010), 270 O.A.C. 107; 2010 ONCA 582, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Kelly (F.T.) (2011), 367 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 946 A.P.R. 1; 2010 NBCA 89, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. McCormack (R.D.) (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 44; 217 W.A.C. 44; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 260; 2000 BCCA 57, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Chuhaniuk (B.D.) (2010), 292 B.C.A.C. 89; 493 W.A.C. 89; 261 C.C.C.(3d) 486; 2010 BCCA 403, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Reddy (C.J.) (2010), 282 B.C.A.C. 51; 476 W.A.C. 51; 2010 BCCA 11, refd to. [para. 135].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487(1) [para. 28]; sect. 487.1 [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Statututory Interpretation (2nd Ed. 2007), pp. 78, 223 [para. 32].

Counsel:

Donald R. Smith (agent for the Attorney General of Canada), for the respondent/Crown;

Andrew Fong (Mah & Company), for the applicant/accused.

This application was heard on March 15-16, 2011, before Yamauchi, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of St. Paul, who delivered the following judgment on April 7, 2011.