R. v. Ironeagle

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Judge: Cameron, Vancise and Wakeling, JJ.A.
• Citation: (1989), 76 Sask.R. 253 (CA)
• Date: 13 June 1989

R. v. Ironeagle (1989), 76 Sask.R. 253 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Melvin Clarence Ironeagle (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(File No. 4099)

Indexed As: R. v. Ironeagle

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Cameron, Vancise and Wakeling, JJ.A.

June 13, 1989.

Summary:

The accused was charged with the possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 34(2) of the Food and Drugs Act. The issue was whether the stopping and warrantless search violated the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, whether the evidence obtained was to be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. The trial judge ruled that there was no denial of the accused's Charter rights under ss. 8 and 9 and convicted the accused. The accused appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Wakeling, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and substituted an acquittal. The court held that the detention and search violated the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter and that the evidence was to be excluded under s. 24(2) to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - Police officers stopped the accused motorist because of an earlier anonymous tip that the accused and his vehicle were periodically seen at a residence where illegal drug activity was suspected - The police acted on mere suspicion, with no reasonable grounds for believing the accused had committed any offence - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the detention and warrantless search violated the accused's rights under ss. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and 9 (arbitrary detention) of the Charter - The court held that the evidence obtained should be excluded under s. 24(2) to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 above].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 above].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - A judge of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that the factors to be considered in determining whether evidence obtained in violation of Charter rights was to be excluded under s. 24(2) were (1) fairness of the trial; (2) the seriousness of the Charter breach and whether it was committed in good faith and merely technical or as opposed to wilful, deliberate and flagrant; and (3) the disrepute that could arise from exclusion of the evidence - See paragraph 53.

Civil Rights - Topic 8550

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Bring the administration of justice into disrepute - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 above].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2062

Search and seizure - Warrantless searches - Reasonable grounds - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 above].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gun Ying (1930), 53 C.C.C. 378 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Gavrilovic (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 287 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Covert (1916), 28 C.C.C. 25, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. MacGregor (1971), 16 C.R.N.S. 173 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Lafrade (1953), 105 C.C.C. 5 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Armstrong (1970), 16 C.R.N.S. 170 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Baylis (1988), 66 Sask.R. 268, refd to. [para. 16].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 27 B.L.R. 297; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; 84 D.T.C. 6467, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. I.D.D. (1987), 60 Sask.R. 72; 61 C.R.(3d) 292, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Turcotte (1987), 60 Sask.R. 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 22].

Qualcast (Wolverhampton) Ltd. v. Haynes, [1959] A.C. 743, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Ingram (1981), 14 M.V.R. 60, refd to. [para. 23].

United States v. Leon (1984), 82 L. Ed. 2d 679, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Simmons (1988), 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Jacoy (1989), 89 N.R. 61; 66 C.R.(3d) 336 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. LaPlante (1987), 59 Sask.R. 251; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 615 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Genest (1989), 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Stevens (1983), 58 N.S.R.(2d) 413; 123 A.P.R. 413; 35 C.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Nielsen, [1988] 6 W.W.R. 1; 66 Sask.R. 293; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 548 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Guse (1983), 37 C.R.(3d) 339, refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10(b), sect. 24(2).

Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27, sect. 37(1) [para. 60].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 10(1).

Counsel:

H. Dahlem, for the Crown;

M. Tochor, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard before Cameron, Vancise and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

On June 13, 1989, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Wakeling, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 45;

Vancise, J.A. - see paragraphs 46 to 71;

Cameron, J.A. - see paragraphs 72 to 99.