R. v. Kelleher (D.M.), (1995) 176 A.R. 329 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Jacobson, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 12, 1995
• Citations: (1995), 176 A.R. 329 (ProvCt)

R. v. Kelleher (D.M.) (1995), 176 A.R. 329 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. David Marlowe Kelleher

(Docket No. 41651647P10101)

In The Matter Of a Seizure pursuant to the provisions of s. 11 of the Narcotic Control Act of money from the person of David Marlowe Kelleher, on or about the 10th day of November, A.D. 1994 at Pincher Creek in the Province of Alberta;

And In The Matter Of an Application by David Marlowe Kelleher pursuant to the provisions of s. 15(1) of the Narcotic Control Act for an Order restoring possession of the said monies to David Marlowe Kelleher pursuant to the provisions of s. 15(1) of the Narcotic Control Act.

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. David Marlowe Kelleher (applicant)

(Docket No. 417450922P10101)

Indexed As: R. v. Kelleher (D.M.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Jacobson, P.C.J.

October 12, 1995.

Summary:

Police conducted a warrantless search of the accused's vehicle under the Narcotic Control Act, finding $14,000 cash and mari­juana. The cash was seized and the accused was issued an appearance notice. He was never arrested or advised of his Charter rights. The accused was subsequently charged with possession of marijuana (Nar­cotic Control Act, s. 3(1)) and possession of the proceeds of crime (s. 19.1(1)(a)). The accused applied under s. 15(1) of the Nar­cotic Control Act for an order restoring possession of the seized monies. The appli­cation did not comply with the procedural requirements of s. 72(2) of the Narcotic Control Act Regulations, but the Crown had not objected. At issue was the court's juris­diction to hear the restoration application and the admissibility of evidence on the s. 3(1) charge. The accused claimed a violation of his rights under ss. 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the restoration application due to noncompliance with the procedural requirements of s. 72(2). The notification required by the Regulations was a nullity. The court held that the accused's rights under ss. 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter were violated. The court excluded, under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the evidence obtained by the search.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unrea­sonable search and seizure defined - The accused was stopped for speeding - The accused, seated in the police car, smelled of marijuana - The officer quickly searched the accused and his vehicle - Nothing was found - The accused was locked in the police car while the officer more closely searched the vehicle - He had reasonable and probable grounds to search, given the smell of marijuana in the vehicle - The officer found $9,000, but no marijuana - Another officer arrived and they re-searched the vehicle, discovering a marijuana cigarette - The accused subsequently disclosed the location of the hidden marijuana - A further $5,000 was found - The accused was never arrested or advised of his Charter rights - He never consented to the warrantless searches - The Alberta Provincial Court held that once the $9,000 was found, the detained accused should have been advised of his Charter rights - Exigent circumstances no longer existed, so the warrantless re-search constituted an unreasonable search and seizure (Charter, s. 8) - The accused's ss. 9 (arbitrary detention) and 10 (right to counsel) rights were also violated - The breach was serious and flagrant - Supreme Court of Canada restrictions on warrantless searches should have been known to the officers and was the equivalent of bad faith - The court excluded the evidence obtained under s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 82 to 158.

Civil Rights - Topic 1651

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Arbitrary detention - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4608

Right to counsel - Right to be advised of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 1106

Penalties - Forfeiture of seized goods - Relief from - Order for restoration - The accused applied under s. 15 of the Narcotic Control Act for an order restoring cash seized from his vehicle - Section 72(1) of the Narcotic Control Act Regulations required written notification by registered mail to the Minister of National Health and Welfare at least 15 clear days before the application was to be heard - The Regulations also required, inter alia, dis­closure of the evidence upon which the accused intended to rely - The accused did not comply with s. 72(2), but the Crown had not objected - The notification was sent to the Provincial Court clerk, not the Minister - Only seven days' notice was given - The notice did not refer to the evidence to be relied on - The Alberta Provincial Court held that it lacked juris­diction to hear the restoration application absent compliance with the procedural requirements of s. 72(2) - Neither the accused nor the Crown could waive com­pliance with s. 72(2) - The defective notification was a nullity - See paragraphs 46 to 81.

Narcotic Control - Topic 2067

Search and seizure - Warrantless searches - Existence of exigent circumstances - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mac (K.M.) et al. (1995), 80 O.A.C. 26; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Ladd, [1964] 1 C.C.C. 309 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Music Explosions Ltd. (1973), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 533 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 60].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Rochon (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 240 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Nurse (1904), 7 O.L.R. 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Dean, [1917] 2 W.W.R. 943 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Doyle, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 597; 9 N.R. 285; 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 17 A.P.R. 45; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 177; 35 C.R.N.S. 1, refd to. [para. 64].

Hill v. R., [1945] 1 All E.R. 414, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Christie, [1914] A.C. 545 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Picariello (1923), 39 C.C.C. 229 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Senechal (1980), 52 C.C.C.(2d) 313; 18 C.R.(3d) 93 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

Gombosh Estate v. R., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 415; 66 N.R. 133; 15 O.A.C. 159; 51 C.R.(3d) 337, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Fleming - see Gombosh Estate v. R.

Fleming, Administrator of Gombosh Estate v. R. - see Gombosh Estate v. R.

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. 83].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 1; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Silveria (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 450, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Klimchuk (A.W.) (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 26; 9 W.A.C. 26; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. I.D.D. (1987), 60 Sask.R. 72; 61 C.R.(3d) 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Edwards (J.P.J.) (1993), 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 334 A.P.R. 234 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Morrison (1983), 6 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (B.C. Co. Ct.), affd. 15 C.C.C.(3d) 415 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Saulnier (1990), 23 M.V.R.(2d) 16 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

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. 103].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Madsen (1993), 43 M.V.R.(2d) 31 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Gillis (M.G.) (1995), 158 N.B.R.(2d) 12; 406 A.P.R. 12; 37 C.R.(4th) 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 11 C.R.(4th) 253; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Macooh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 802; 155 N.R. 44; 141 A.R. 321; 46 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 8 W.A.C. 1; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 109].

Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392, refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Kay (1990), 53 C.C.C.(3d) 500 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659; [1964] Q.B. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 34 M.V.R. 1, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 1 C.R.(4th) 62; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 193; 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 157; 50 C.R.R. 285, refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Bartle (K.) [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Bonin (1989), 47 C.C.C.(3d) 230 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [Appendix C].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [Appen­dix C].

R. v. Cutforth (1987), 81 A.R. 213; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 253 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix C].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145, refd to. [Appendix C].

R. v. Jacques (J.R.) and Mitchell (M.M.) (1995), 157 N.B.R.(2d) 195; 404 A.P.R. 195; 37 C.R.(4th) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix C].

R. v. Lamy (R.M.J.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 179; 41 W.A.C. 179; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 558 (C.A.), refd to. [Appen­dix C].

R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 542 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix C].

Ryley Hotel Co., Re (1910), 15 W.L.R. 229 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [Appendix C].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [Appendix C].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 24(2) [para. 12].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 101(1) [para. 87]; sect. 495(1), sect. 495(2) [para. 88].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 3(1) [para. 8]; sect. 10 [para. 92]; sect. 11 [para. 55]; sect. 15(1) [para. 7]; sect. 16 [para. 59]; sect. 19(2) [para. 11].

Narcotic Control Act Regulations (Can.), sect. 72(1) [para. 52]; sect. 72(2) [para. 78].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed. 1986) [Appendix C].

MacFarlane, Bruce A., Drug Offences in Canada (2nd Ed. 1986), generally [Appendix C].

Powell, C.M., Arrest and Bail in Canada (1972), p. 8 [para. 95].

Woodall, Kevin M., The Recovery of Seized Property (1994), 36 C.L.Q. 210, generally [para. 46].

Counsel:

[not disclosed]

This case was heard before Jacobson, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on October 12, 1995.