R. v. K.M.E., [2004] B.C.T.C. 827 (SC)

• Judge: Romilly, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 07, 2004
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: [2004] B.C.T.C. 827 (SC);2004 BCSC 827

R. v. K.M.E., [2004] B.C.T.C. 827 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MY.077

Her Majesty the Queen v. K.M.E.

(CC981593; 2004 BCSC 827)

Indexed As: R. v. K.M.E.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Romilly, J.

June 18, 2004.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - See paragraphs 1 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 3093

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - What constitutes reasonable grounds - See paragraphs 1 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 3113

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - General - Scope of review - See paragraphs 1 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 3117

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - General - Cross-examination of affiant - See paragraphs 1 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 5332

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Necessity and purpose of - See paragraphs 1 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 5334

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Procedure - See paragraphs 1 to 59.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hamill (1984), 14 C.C.C.(3d) 338 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Feldman (A.F.) (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 31; 67 W.A.C. 31; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Vukelich (M.) (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 113; 128 W.A.C. 113; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1997] 2 S.C.R. xvi; 216 N.R. 239; 98 B.C.A.C. 80; 161 W.A.C. 80, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Bradley (P.W.) (1999), 11 B.C.T.C. 202 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. McCreery (T.S.), [1996] B.C.J. No. 2403 (S.C.), affd. (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 161; 176 W.A.C. 161; 62 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1998] 2 S.C.R. ix; 231 N.R. 399; 120 B.C.A.C. 319; 196 W.A.C. 319, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Paterson (D.R.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 200; 166 W.A.C. 200; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Khuc (T.A.) et al. (2000), 132 B.C.A.C. 139; 215 W.A.C. 139; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

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. 13].

R. v. Cheung (Y.W.) (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 161; 157 W.A.C. 161; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 507 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 227 N.R. 291; 119 B.C.A.C. 320; 194 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Damianakos (W.) (1997), 126 Man.R.(2d) 81; 167 W.A.C. 81; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Starr (R.D.) (1998), 123 Man.R.(2d) 292; 159 W.A.C. 292; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (C.A.), revd. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 16, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Ambrose (M.C.) et al. (1994), 73 O.A.C. 135 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1995] 2 S.C.R. v; 191 N.R. 160; 89 O.A.C. 78, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Villeneuve (A.) (1992), 50 Q.A.C. 278; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Rendon (1999), 140 C.C.C.(3d) 12 (Que. C.A.), affd. [2001] 1 S.C.R. 997, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Monroe (D.T.) (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 256; 147 W.A.C. 256; 8 C.R.(5th) 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres (1994), 60 Q.A.C. 173; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al. (1998), 109 B.C.A.C. 131; 177 W.A.C. 131; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 315 (C.A.), affd. [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Lising (R.) (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 42; 316 W.A.C. 42; 2004 BCCA 33, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Pires - see R. v. Lising (R.).

Schafer (R.C.) et al. v. R. (1992), 107 Sask.R. 25; 18 W.C.B.(2d) 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. National Post et al., [2002] O.T.C. 961; 101 C.R.R.(2d) 158 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Lachance, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1490; 116 N.R. 325; 43 O.A.C. 241; 36 Q.A.C. 243; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Hiscock (G.); R. v. Sauvé (P.) (1991), 51 Q.A.C. 304; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Moore (G.P.) et al. (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 253; 45 W.A.C. 253; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 161 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 1 S.C.R. 756; 179 N.R. 313; 60 B.C.A.C. 161; 99 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Arason (R.H.) and Derosier (G.L.) (1992), 21 B.C.A.C. 20; 37 W.A.C. 20; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Jones (G.I.) (1991), 89 Sask.R. 214; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 181 (C.A.), affd. [1993] 1 S.C.R. 460; 150 N.R. 148; 109 Sask.R. 240; 42 W.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Kelly (R.J.), [1994] B.C.T.C. Uned. 636 (S.C.), affd. (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 119; 100 W.A.C. 119; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Chambers (1984), 9 C.C.C.(3d) 132 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1986] 2 S.C.R. 29; 67 N.R. 382, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Concepcion (A.) et al. (1994), 48 B.C.A.C. 44; 78 W.A.C. 44 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Gray v. British Columbia, [1988] B.C.J. No. 3057 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Anderson, [1992] B.C.J. No. 1461 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Hiscock and Sauve (1992), 46 Q.A.C. 263; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 49].

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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Veinot (K.A.) (1995), 144 N.S.R.(2d) 388; 416 A.P.R. 388 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

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, refd to. [para. 50].

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

Authors and Works Noticed:

Watt, David, Interception of Private Communications, Current Issues in Criminal Law (1991), p. 28 [para. 48].

Counsel:

Catherine Murray and Jennie Gillings, for the Crown;

Robert C. Claus and Michelle Daneliuk, for the accused.

This application was heard on June 7, 2004, before Romilly, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on June 18, 2004.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.