R. v. Kang-Brown (G.), (2008) 373 N.R. 67 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 22, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2008), 373 N.R. 67 (SCC);2008 SCC 18;AZ-50487304;[2008] ACS no 18;230 CCC (3d) 289;EYB 2008-132461;373 NR 67;55 CR (6th) 240;77 WCB (2d) 288;JE 2008-905;432 AR 1;[2008] 1 SCR 456;293 DLR (4th) 99;[2008] 6 WWR 17;[2008] SCJ No 18 (QL);169 CRR (2d) 61;87 Alta LR (4th) 1

R. v. Kang-Brown (G.) (2008), 373 N.R. 67 (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: [2008] N.R. TBEd. AP.065

Gurmakh Kang-Brown (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors)

(31598; 2008 SCC 18; 2008 CSC 18)

Indexed As: R. v. Kang-Brown (G.)

Supreme Court of Canada

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

April 25, 2008.

Summary:

The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of heroin. He applied to exclude evidence of cocaine seized from his luggage by police at a bus terminal on the basis that his ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) Charter rights were violated.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 386 A.R. 48, dismissed the application. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Paperny, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 391 A.R. 218; 377 W.A.C. 218, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Binnie and McLaughlin, JJ., partly concurring and Deschamps, Rothstein and Bastarche, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and set aside the accused's conviction.

Editor's Note: for a related case involving these parties see 401 A.R. 191; 391 W.A.C. 191 (C.A.).

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - The police were patrolling a Calgary bus terminal for drug couriers - An officer stopped the accused and talked with him - The officer became very suspicious - A police dog was brought over and indicated the presence of drugs in the accused's partially unzipped bag - The accused was arrested and cocaine was discovered - The trial judge held that the odour emanating from the accused's bag, which he voluntarily brought into a public transportation facility, was not information in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy - The dog sniff was not a search within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the accused's appeal - The court declined to create or discover a common law police power to use sniffer dogs to conduct the search in fulfilment of their general duty to investigate crime - Absent justified authority for such a search in a statute or at common law, the use of sniffer dogs constituted a search within the meaning of s. 8 - The search did not meet the well-established standard of "reasonable and probable grounds" for the exercise of police powers - The court declined to lower that standard to "reasonable suspicion" as that would impair the important safeguards found in s. 8 against unjustified state intrusion - Given the seriousness of the breach, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 1 and 17.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - The Supreme Court of Canada (per LeBel, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.) stated that s. 8 of the Charter expressed one of the core values of our society: respect for personal privacy and autonomy - The protection of privacy interests rested on the constraints, like the requirements of prior authorization and reasonableness, imposed on those conducting searches and seizures by the wording of s. 8 and by the courts in applying that section - The needs of law enforcement had to be taken into consideration and to be balanced with reasonable expectations of privacy - Nevertheless, in the leading cases on s. 8, the courts imposed significant constraints on intrusions on personal privacy by state agents - Those constraints were that there be a legal basis for the search or seizure in a statute or at common law, prior judicial authorization, and reasonable and probable cause - Departures from that constitutional framework had to be justified by the state - La Forest, J., stated in R. v. Wong that, as a matter of principle, common law police powers were narrow and their extension was better left to Parliament - See paragraphs 8 and 10.

Civil Rights - Topic 1524

Property - Personal property - Search and seizure by police - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1641.4

Property - Search and seizure - Drug-sniffing dogs - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the Charter does not prohibit the use of sniffer dogs or other investigative techniques by police; it does require, however, that they be used in accordance with the standards established by s. 8." - See paragraph 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 1641.4

Property - Search and seizure - Drug-sniffing dogs - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the issue of the role of the courts in respect of common law police powers is squarely before us on this appeal. ... I conclude that any perceived gap in the present state of the law on police investigative powers arising from the use of sniffer dogs is a matter better left for Parliament." - See paragraph 4.

Civil Rights - Topic 1641.4

Property - Search and seizure - Drug-sniffing dogs - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1642

Property - Search and seizure - Search - What constitutes - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Police - Topic 3024

Powers - Common law - Scope of - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Police - Topic 3189

Powers - Search - Use of dogs - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1508 and first and second Civil Rights - Topic 1641.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. A.M. (2008), 373 N.R. 198; 236 O.A.C. 267; 2008 SCC 19, consd. [paras. 1, 19, 108, 213].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [paras. 3, 24, 134].

Hislop et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 429; 358 N.R. 197; 222 O.A.C. 324; 2007 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 5].

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. [paras. 6, 22, 152, 232].

R. v. Clayton (W.) et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 725; 364 N.R. 199; 227 O.A.C. 314; 2007 SCC 32, refd to. [paras. 6, 22, 146, 224].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 8].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 8].

British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, Re - see Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.).

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227; 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 2002 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [paras. 10, 138, 228].

Illinois v. Caballes (2005), 543 U.S. 405, refd to. [paras. 15, 133].

R. v. Tessling (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168; 2004 SCC 67, refd to. [paras. 38, 136, 226].

R. v. Dinh (H.T.) et al. (2003), 330 A.R. 63; 299 W.A.C. 63; 2003 ABCA 201, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [paras. 48, 144, 224].

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. 48].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 49, 145].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 49, 149, 225].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Godoy (V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; 235 N.R. 134; 117 O.A.C. 127, refd to. [paras. 49, 154, 225].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 59, 139, 228].

R. v. Monney (I.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652; 237 N.R. 157; 119 O.A.C. 272, refd to. [paras. 59, 167, 228].

R. v. M.R.M., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393; 233 N.R. 1; 171 N.S.R.(2d) 125; 519 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Mercer (R.S.) (2004), 362 A.R. 136; 45 Alta. L.R.(4th) 144; 2004 ABPC 94, refd to. [para. 65].

Dehghani v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 150 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Cahill (M.S.) (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 247; 23 W.A.C. 247; 13 C.R.(4th) 327 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Alabama v. White (1990), 496 U.S. 325, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 12 O.R.(3d) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 76, 165].

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. [paras. 76, 164, 228].

R. v. Ferris (T.L.) (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 244; 176 W.A.C. 244; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Lal (S.N.) (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 47; 184 W.A.C. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Reid v. Georgia (1980), 448 U.S. 438, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Dinh (H.T.) et al. (2001), 284 A.R. 304; 2001 ABPC 48, refd to. [para. 83].

United States v. Sokolow (1989), 490 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 87].

Sibron v. New York (1968), 392 U.S. 40, refd to. [para. 87].

Florida v. Royer (1983), 460 U.S. 491, dist. [para. 87].

United States v. Eustaquio (1999), 198 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. McCarthy (T.J.) (2005), 239 N.S.R.(2d) 23; 760 A.P.R. 23; 2005 NSPC 49, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Schrenk (C.A.) (2007), 215 Man.R.(2d) 212; 2007 MBQB 93, refd to. [para. 94].

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. [paras. 102, 161].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [paras. 102, 231].

Questions of Law Reserved (No. 3 of 1998) (1998), 71 S.A.S.R. 223 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 135, 224].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, refd to. [para. 136].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 136, 223].

R. v. Clayton (W.) et al. (2005), 196 O.A.C. 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 150].

R. v. Boersma (D.) and Nicols (R.W.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 488; 168 N.R. 196; 45 B.C.A.C. 3; 72 W.A.C. 3, refd to. [para. 161].

United States v. Place (1983), 462 U.S. 696, refd to. [paras. 161, 238].

R. v. Woods (J.C.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 205; 336 N.R. 1; 195 Man.R.(2d) 131; 351 W.A.C. 131; 2005 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 166].

R. v. Knowlton, [1974] S.C.R. 443, refd to. [para. 182].

R. v. Truong (S.H.) (2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 97; 276 W.A.C. 97; 168 C.C.C.(3d) 132; 2002 BCCA 315, refd to. [para. 184].

People v. Dunn (1990), 564 N.E.2d 1054 (N.Y. Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 193].

State v. Pellicci (1990), 580 A.2d 710 (N.H. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 193].

McGahan v. State (1991), 807 P.2d 506 (Alaska Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 193].

Commonwealth v. Johnston (1987), 530 A.2d 74 (Pa. Super. Ct.), refd to. [para. 193].

R. v. Murray (1999), 136 C.C.C.(3d) 197 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 198].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 227].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Australia, New South Wales Ombudsman, Discussion Paper: Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act (2004), generally [para. 15].

Beaudoin, Gérald-A., and Mendes, Errol P., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 10-72, 10-94 [para. 9].

Chevrette, François, and Cyr, Hugo, La protection en matière de fouilles, perquisitions et saisies, en matière de détention, la non-rétroactivité de l'infraction et la peine la plus douce, in Beaudoin, Gérald-A., and Mendes, Errol P., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 10-72, 10-94 [para. 9].

Davis-Barron, Sherri, The Lawful Use of Drug Detector Dogs (2007), 52 Crim. L.Q. 345, p. 384 [para. 54].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf Supp.), vol. 2, pp. 455, 456 [para. 9].

Johnson, R., et al., Gérard V. La Forest at the Supreme Court of Canada, 1985-1997 (2000), p. 3 [para. 5].

La Forest, Gérard V., Judicial Lawmaking, Creativity and Constraints, in Johnson, R., et al., Gérard V. La Forest at the Supreme Court of Canada, 1985-1997 (2000), p. 3 [para. 5].

LaFave, Wayne R., Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (4th Ed. 2004), vol. 1, § 2.2(g), fn. 431 [para. 193]; vol. 4, p. 503 [para. 79].

Pollack, Kenneth L., Stretching the Terry Doctrine to the Search for Evidence of Crime: Canine Sniffs, State Constitutions, and the Reasonable Suspicion Standard (1994), 47 Vand. L. Rev. 803, p. 805 [para. 192].

Sankoff, Peter, and Perrault, Stéphane, Suspicious Searches: What's so Reasonable About Them? (1999), 24 C.R.(5th) 123, pp. 125, 126 [para. 75].

Sharpe, Robert J., and Roach, Kent, Brian Dickson: A Judge's Journey (2003), pp. 312 to 316 [para. 8].

Shaw, Trevor, The Law on the Use of Police Dogs in Canada (2004), 48 Crim. L.Q. 337, p. 337 [para. 66].

Counsel:

James M. Lutz and Alias A. Sanders, for the appellant;

Kenneth J. Yule, Q.C., Jolaine Antonio and Lisa Matthews, for the respondent;

Robert W. Hubbard and Alison Wheeler, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Dominique A. Jobin and Gilles Laporte, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Kenneth D. Madsen, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Frank Addario and Emma Phillips, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Jonathan C. Lisus, Christopher A. Wayland and Sarah Corman, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Dartnell & Lutz, Calgary, Alberta, and Alias A. Sanders, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;

Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of Quebec, Quebec, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on May 22, 2007, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on April 25, 2008, and the following opinions were filed:

LeBel, J. (Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 17;

Binnie, J., partially concurring (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring) - see paragraphs 18 to 105;

Deschamps, J., dissenting (Rothstein, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 106 to 211;

Bastarache, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 212 to 256.