R. v. Jackpine (R.), (2006) 210 O.A.C. 200 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 27, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 210 O.A.C. 200 (SCC);2006 SCC 15;[2006] ACS no 15;69 WCB (2d) 741;207 CCC (3d) 225;266 DLR (4th) 101;JE 2006-910;[2006] SCJ No 15 (QL);[2006] 1 SCR 554;210 OAC 200;140 CRR (2d) 1;EYB 2006-104246;AZ-50369828;[2006] CarswellOnt 2498;347 NR 201;37 CR (6th) 1

R. v. Jackpine (R.) (2006), 210 O.A.C. 200 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2006] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.124

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Dennis Rodgers (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Attorney General of New Brunswick and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenors)

(30319; 2006 SCC 15; 2006 CSC 15)

Indexed As: R. v. Jackpine (R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

April 27, 2006.

Summary:

The Crown applied ex parte under s. 487.055(1) of the Criminal Code for orders authorizing the taking of bodily substances from two accused (Jackpine and Rodgers) for forensic DNA analysis. The accused, both on parole, were summonsed to appear to provide samples. The accused applied to quash the authorizations, submitting that the relevant provisions were unconstitutional and, alternatively, that the judge lost jurisdiction by proceeding ex parte.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the application. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2004), 184 O.A.C. 354, rejected the constitutional challenge, but held that the judge lost jurisdiction by proceeding ex parte. An application under s. 487.055(1) could only be heard ex parte where the Crown demonstrated a need to proceed ex parte. That need had not been demonstrated by the Crown. The court quashed the authorizations. The Crown appealed the quashing of the authorizations. One of the accused (Rodgers) cross-appealed the rejection of the constitutional challenge.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Fish, Binnie and Deschamps, JJ., dissenting, allowed the Crown's appeal and dismissed Rodgers' cross-appeal. The court stated that "section 487.055(1) of the Criminal Code does not infringe ss. 7, 8, 11(h) and 11(i) of the Charter. I would also conclude that there is no reason to interfere with the authorization judge's discretion to proceed with the s. 487.055(1) application on an ex parte basis. He was statutorily authorized to do so and no suggestion has been made that, if indeed so authorized, he did not exercise his discretion judicially".

Civil Rights - Topic 644.2

Liberty - Limitations on - DNA samples - The accused were both convicted of and sentenced for at least two sexual offences prior to the enactment of the DNA Identification Act (i.e. retroactive offenders) - Both were on parole when the Crown obtained, by way of ex parte applications under s. 487.055 of the Criminal Code, orders that they supply DNA samples for the DNA databank - The accused challenged the constitutionality of the relevant provisions - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the rejection of the constitutional challenge - The court stated that "the collection of DNA samples for data bank purposes from designated classes of convicted offenders is reasonable within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter. ... The resulting impact on the physical integrity of the targeted offenders is minimal. The potential invasive impact on the right to privacy has carefully been circumscribed by legislative safeguards that restrict the use of the DNA data bank as an identification tool only. As convicted offenders still under sentence, the persons targeted by s. 487.055 have a much reduced expectation of privacy. Further, by reason of their crimes, they have lost any reasonable expectation that their identity will remain secret from law enforcement authorities. Having regard to the interests at stake and the procedural safeguards afforded by the legislative scheme, I have also concluded that the ex parte nature of the proceedings meets the dictates of procedural fairness afforded under s. 7 of the Charter. Finally, ss. 11(h) and 11(i) of the Charter are inapplicable. The taking of DNA samples does not constitute a punishment within the meaning of s. 11 anymore than the taking of fingerprints or other identification measures." - See paragraph 5.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - [See Civil Rights - Topic 644.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.2

Security of the person - Law enforcement - DNA samples - [See Civil Rights - Topic 644.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1444

Security of the person - Right to privacy - Expectation of privacy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 644.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3131.1

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi- criminal proceedings - Right to benefit of lesser punishment - [See Civil Rights - Topic 644.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3766

Punishment - General - Punishment defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 644.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8318

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application - Statutory interpretation - Preference to Charter values - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "in the interpretation of a statute, Charter values as an interpretative tool can only play a role where there is a genuine ambiguity in the legislation. In other words, where the legislation permits two different, yet equally plausible, interpretations, each of which is equally consistent with the apparent purpose of the statute, it is appropriate to prefer the interpretation that accords with Charter principles. However, where a statute is not ambiguous, the court must give effect to the clearly expressed legislative intent and not use the Charter to achieve a different result." - See paragraph 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 3079

Special powers - Forensic DNA analysis - Ex parte application for warrant - The accused were both convicted of and sentenced for at least two sexual offences prior to the coming into force of the DNA Identification Act (i.e. retroactive offenders) - Both were on parole when the Crown obtained, by way of ex parte applications under s. 487.055 of the Criminal Code, orders that they supply DNA samples for the DNA databank - The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the ex parte orders on the ground that the issuing judge lost jurisdiction by proceeding ex parte without requiring the Crown to prove the necessity of proceeding without notice to the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "the authorizing judge did not commit jurisdictional error in proceeding ex parte. The Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s. 487.055 as presumptively requiring an inter partes hearing. The provision is unambiguous and expressly permits but does not require an ex parte proceeding. The failure to provide notice did not deprive Mr. Rodgers of procedural fairness. ... He was statutorily authorized to [proceed on an ex parte basis] and no suggestion has been made that, if indeed so authorized, he did not exercise his discretion judicially" - See paragraphs 5, 66.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. S.A.B. et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 678; 311 N.R. 1; 339 A.R. 1; 312 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 8].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 18].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Golden (I.V.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 679; 279 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 83, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 18].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 18].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 19].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 19].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 19].

Charlebois v. Saint John (City), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 563; 342 N.R. 203; 292 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 761 A.P.R. 1; 2005 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

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. 26].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Briggs (W.) (2001), 149 O.A.C. 244; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Jacques (J.R.) and Mitchell (M.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312; 202 N.R. 49; 180 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 458 A.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Monney (I.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652; 237 N.R. 157; 119 O.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392, refd to. [para. 42].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Conway v. Canada.

R. v. Murrins (D.) (2002), 201 N.S.R.(2d) 288; 629 A.P.R. 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3; 295 N.R. 353; 2002 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 46].

Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) - see Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al.

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Rose (J.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 262; 232 N.R. 83; 115 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 47].

Dehghani v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 150 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 47].

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. 47].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 47].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 47].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 47].

United States v. Kincade (2004), 379 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. en banc), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 24 O.A.C. 321; 61 Sask.R. 105, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; 104 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 63, refd to. [para. 59].

Martineau v. Ministre du Revenu national, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737; 328 N.R. 48; 2004 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 59].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 88].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 11(h), sect. 11(i) [para. 22].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487.055(1) [para. 15].

DNA Identification Act, S.C. 1998, c. 37, sect. 3, sect. 4 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Kenneth L. Campbell and Michal Fairburn, for the appellant;

Gregory Lafontaine and Vincenzo Rondinelli, for the respondent;

Ronald C. Reimer, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Sabin Ouellet and Annie-Claude Bergeron, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;

Peter P. Rosinski, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Williams B. Richards, for the intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Beverly A. MacLean, for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

Crown Law Office, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Lafontaine & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S., for the intervenor, Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Office of the Attorney General, Fredericton, N.B., for the intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick;

Ministry of Attorney General, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on November 15, 2005, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 27, 2006, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Charron, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache and Abella, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 66;

Fish, J., dissenting (Binnie and Deschamps, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 67 to 99.