R. v. Hedderson (F.), (1992) 98 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 126 (NFPC)

• Judge: LeBlanc, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 07, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1992), 98 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 126 (NFPC)

R. v. Hedderson (F.) (1992), 98 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 126 (NFPC);

    311 A.P.R. 126

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen v. Frederick Hedderson

Indexed As: R. v. Hedderson (F.)

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Corner Brook

LeBlanc, P.C.J.

April 7, 1992.

Summary:

An accused was charged with unlawfully commencing to bleed a seal before it was dead, contrary to the Seal Protection Regu­lations. At a voir dire, prior to the trial, it was decided that evidence called on a voir dire of a co-accused would be admitted at the accused's trial.

At the voir dire of the co-accused, the Newfoundland Provincial Court held that the fishery officers had violated the rights of the co-accused by improperly obtaining a search warrant for a videotape in his home. The court held that the videotape was inadmiss­ible at trial of the co-accused under s. 24(2) of the Charter. An application was made to the court to decide if the videotape was admissible against the accused.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court con­cluded that the videotape was admissible.

Civil Rights - Topic 1647

Property - Search and seizure - Persons protected - Parties agreed that evidence called on a voir dire of a co-accused would be admissible at the trial of the accused - During the voir dire, the court, pursuant to s. 24 of the Charter, excluded a videotape from e­vidence where the co-accused's s. 8 Char­ter right to be secure from unreason­able search and seiz­ure had been violated - At the accused's trial, the Newfoundland Provincial Court concluded that the ac­cused's rights were not directly violated and the videotape was admissible where it would not effect the fairness of the trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - After reviewing the case law, the New­foundland Provincial Court stated that "standing to apply for exclusion of evi­dence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter only exists where there has been a direct interference of the rights of the person alleging the violation or where there has been, potentially or actually a massive invasion of the rights of persons not involved in the activity being investigated" - See paragraphs 8 to 34.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 503, appld. [para. 8].

Borowski v. Minister of Justice and Min­ister of Finance of Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 97; 24 C.R.(3d) 352; 24 C.P.C. 62; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 588, folld. [para. 9].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 57 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 481, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Thompson et al. (1990), 114 N.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 15].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

Katz v. U.S. (1967), 389 U.S. 347 (U.S.S.C.), consd. [para. 18].

Rakas v. Illinois (1978), 439 U.S. 128, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Montoute (1991), 113 A.R. 95; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), consd. [para. 21].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, 55 C.C.C.(3d) 183, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. McDonough (1988), 44 C.C.C. 370 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Clouatre and Tabah (1986), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 271 (Q.C.A.), consd. [para. 25].

Model Power v. R. (1982), 21 C.R.(3d) 195 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

Beach v. Attorney General of Canada (1978), 13 A.R. 502 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Leaney and Rawlinson (1987), 81 A.R. 247; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 263, consd. [para. 30].

R. v. Fraser (1990), 55 C.C.C. 551 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [paras. 5, 7, 10, 11, 35]; sect. 8 [paras. 5, 7, 16, 17, 35]; sect. 15 [paras. 10, 11]; sect. 24 [para. 35]; sect. 24(1) [paras. 5, 35, 36]; sect. 24(2) [paras. 3, 4, 5, 14, 17, 22, 27, 34, 36]; sect. 52(1) [para. 12].

Counsel:

George Murphy, for the Crown.

Derek Hogan and Gerard Martin, Q.C., for the accused.

This case was heard at Corner Brook, Newfoundland, before LeBlanc, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 7, 1992.