R. v. Kim (H.S.) et al., (2004) 368 A.R. 271 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 368 A.R. 271 (QB);2004 ABQB 584

R. v. Kim (H.S.) (2004), 368 A.R. 271 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. AU.060

Her Majesty The Queen v. Ho Sung Kim, Randy Sai Lee and David Kim (accused)

(106756157 Q1; 2004 ABQB 584)

Indexed As: R. v. Kim (H.S.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

July 28, 2004.

Summary:

The accused were charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) for the purpose of trafficking.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concluded that there had been breaches of the accused's rights, excluded the resulting evidence and found the accused not guilty.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - A police officer pulled over a rental vehicle - The rental agreement revealed that the vehicle was outside the authorized area - The officer suspected that the vehicle's occupants were drug dealers - The officer contacted the rental company and advised it that the car was outside the authorized area and there might be something illegal in it - The company authorized a search - The police subsequently obtained a warrant to search the car - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in discussing whether s. 8 of the Charter was breached, stated that the reasonable expectation of privacy respecting the car's contents was not diminished by the rental agency's consent - The expectation of privacy was not lost because the vehicle was outside the authorized area - One might argue that the expectation of privacy would be diminished if the driver was a thief and did not have the rental agreement in his possession or had been in an car accident and the police had investigative responsibilities - Obtaining the rental company's permission to search was relevant to good faith and s. 24(2) considerations - See paragraphs 133 to 141.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - A police officer pulled over a vehicle for speeding - The officer suspected that the occupants (the accused) were drug dealers - The vehicle was towed back to the station - The police arranged to have a dog brought in to conduct a sniff search of the vehicle - The police put the accused in lock up for a lengthy period while they waited for the dog - The police were prepared to leave them in lock up for up to six hours - The search indicated that the vehicle smelled like drugs - That information was used in an information to obtain a search warrant - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the sniff search constituted the use of technology to acquire information and was an intrusion on s. 8 of the Charter that required the intervention of a search warrant - The information resulting from the sniff search should not have been included in the information to obtain the search warrant - See paragraphs 149 to 155 and 174.

Civil Rights - Topic 3142

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Arrest or detention - Right to be informed of reasons for (Charter, s. 10(a)) - A police officer pulled over a rental vehicle for speeding - The officer suspected that the occupants (Kim, Lee and another) (the accused) were drug dealers - The officer gave Kim his right to counsel, but did not read the part of the police card respecting s. 10(a) of the Charter - The officer advised Kim that she wanted to ask him questions about the vehicle's contents and his trip and that he was being detained for investigative purposes - Another officer interviewed Lee - The officers felt that there were inconsistencies in Kim's and Lee's answers - The vehicle was towed to the police station - The accused were put in lock up for a lengthy period while a dog was brought in to perform a sniff search - The sniff search indicated that the vehicle smelled like drugs - The police obtained and executed a search warrant - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the failure to advise the accused of why they were being detained constituted a breach of s. 10(a) of the Charter - However, the interview that followed did not transgress the voluntariness standards and the answers given by the accused were admissible at common law, at least for the purposes of a voir dire - As the circumstances escalated and the more the police considered the accused to be suspects, the more the police should have made it clear exactly why the accused were being detained - The failure to do so constituted a breach of the s. 10(b) right to counsel - See paragraphs 104 to 114 and 183 to 186.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3142 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - General - Duty of police investigators - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3142 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3097

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - Contents of information or application for issue of - A police officer stopped a rental vehicle - The officer suspected that the vehicle's occupants were drug dealers - The occupants were detained - The officer sought a search warrant - The information to obtain the warrant stated that the driver's refusal to consent to the search of the vehicle was a good indicator that he had drugs in the vehicle - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the refusal to consent was of no informative value and provided little justification for a further intrusion on the driver's rights by searching the vehicle without his consent - See paragraphs 162 to 167.

Criminal Law - Topic 5338

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - Where accused's rights violated - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3142 ].

Police - Topic 3103

Powers - Investigation - Powers respecting persons under arrest - A police officer suspected that the occupants of a vehicle (the accused) were drug dealers - The officer obtained a warrant to search the vehicle - The information to obtain the warrant stated that, inter alia, the accused were arrested and put in cells for the purpose of investigation and, while in the cells, one of the accused was found to possess a cell phone, a pager and $614 in cash - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to consider this paragraph in determining the warrant's validity - This was not real evidence of acquisition for the purposes of obtaining the warrant - This was a conscription and exceeded the jurisdiction of the common law respecting the type of stops that were justified as investigative stops - An investigative detention without a warrant should be comparatively brief and, in any event, particularly and rationally related to the grounds upon which it was being done - The police exceeded the permissible boundaries by conducting an investigation and detaining the accused for that purpose - See paragraphs 168 to 175.

Cases Noticed:

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; 174 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 10 C.R.(6th) 397; 225 D.L.R.(4th) 624; [2004] 4 W.W.R. 1; 2003 CarswellMan 230; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 3, footnote 2].

R. v. Mann (P.H.) (2004), 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, reving. [2002] 11 W.W.R. 435; 166 Man.R.(2d) 260; 278 W.A.C. 260; 169 C.C.C.(3d) 272; 5 C.R.(6th) 305; 2002 CarswellMan 404 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 3].

R. v. Hamstra (J.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 183; [2004] A.W.L.D. 253; 2004 CarswellAlta 240; 2004 ABQB 156, refd to. [para. 11, footnote 4].

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. 14, footnote 5].

Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1; 88 S. Ct. 1868 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 6].

R. v. Feldman (A.F.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 832; 178 N.R. 140; 53 B.C.A.C. 158; 87 W.A.C. 158; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 575; 1994 CarswellBC 1251, affing. (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 31; 67 W.A.C. 31; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 7].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 449; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 38 C.R.(5th) 307; 79 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2000 CarswellBC 2440; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 8].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31; 42 M.V.R.(2d) 237; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 175; 1992 CarswellAlta 263 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1993] 2 S.C.R. vii; 151 N.R. 400; 141 A.R. 317; 46 W.A.C. 317; 79 C.C.C.(3d) vi; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 192, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 9].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405; 10 C.R.(5th) 65; 46 C.R.R.(2d) 272; 29 M.V.R.(3d) 1; 1997 CarswellOnt 2926; 34 O.R.(3d) 806, refd to. [para. 26, footnote 10].

R. v. Mercer and Kenny (1992), 52 O.A.C. 70; 11 C.R.(4th) 325; 7 O.R.(3d) 9; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 180; 1992 CarswellOnt 73 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1992), 143 N.R. 396; 59 O.A.C. 64 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26, footnote 11].

R. v. Arason (R.H.) and Derosier (G.L.), [1993] B.C.W.L.D. 190; 21 B.C.A.C. 20; 37 W.A.C. 20; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.R.(2d) 248; 1992 CarswellBC 814 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 12].

R. v. Sandhu (K.S.) (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 203; 47 W.A.C. 203; 22 C.R.(4th) 300; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 236; 1993 CarswellBC 501 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 12].

R. v. Hyatt (S.A.) et al. (2003), 176 B.C.A.C. 216; 290 W.A.C. 216; 171 C.C.C.(3d) 409; 9 C.R.(6th) 378; 2003 CarswellBC 59; 2002 BCCA 27, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 12].

R. v. Adams (F.) (2001), 148 O.A.C. 253; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 220; 203 D.L.R.(4th) 290; 88 C.R.R.(2d) 301; 2001 CarswellOnt 2783 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 13].

R. v. Cheung (Y.W.) (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 161; 157 W.A.C. 161; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 507; 1997 CarswellBC 2241 (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. 32, footnote 14].

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; 1990 CarswellBC 255, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 15].

R. v. Lastiwka - see R. v. Perras; R. v. Robertson; R. v. Lastuka.

R. v. Perras; R. v. Robertson; R. v. Lastuka, [1986] 1 W.W.R. 429; 62 A.R. 226; 40 Alta. L.R.(2d) 289; 36 M.V.R. 73; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 22 D.L.R.(4th) 100; 19 C.R.R. 75; 1985 CarswellAlta 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 15].

R. v. Kim (H.S.) et al. (2004), 349 A.R. 117; 2004 CarswellAlta 241; 2004 ABQB 157, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 17].

R. v. Kim (H.S.) et al. (2003), 349 A.R. 103; 2003 CarswellAlta 1791; 2003 ABQB 1025, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 17].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 12 O.R.(3d) 182; 20 C.R.(4th) 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 338; 1993 CarswellOnt 727 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 19].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 1; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316; 47 C.R.R. 210; 1990 CarswellOnt 78, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 19].

R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 858; 179 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 359; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 37 C.R.(4th) 197; 22 O.R.(3d) 288; 27 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 1995 CarswellOnt 12, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 20].

R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485; 20 C.R.(3d) 97; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30; 121 D.L.R.(3d) 578, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 21].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 257; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; 2000 CarswellNS 257; 2000 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 313; 4 C.R.(4th) 125; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 370; 1991 CarswellNS 29, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 22].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 37 C.R.R. 369; 67 C.R.(3d) 209; 1989 CarswellOnt 67, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 23].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404; 33 C.R.(4th) 147; 24 C.R.R.(2d) 51; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 74; 1994 CarswellNS 26, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 24].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 193; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 16 C.R.(4th) 273; 40 M.V.R.(2d) 204; 5 Alta. L.R.(3d) 322; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 65; 1992 CarswellAlta 149, refd to. [para. 79, footnote 25].

R. v. Richardson (M.) (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 306; 250 W.A.C. 306; 82 C.R.R.(2d) 37; 43 C.R.(5th) 371; 93 B.C.L.R.(3d) 36; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 2001 CarswellBC 948; 2001 BCCA 260, leave to appeal refused (2001), 284 N.R. 197; 169 B.C.A.C. 58; 276 W.A.C. 58; 2001 CarswellBC 2381; 86 C.R.R.(2d) 376; 2001 CarswellBC 2382 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 26].

R. v. Lam (H.D.) (2003), 189 B.C.A.C. 9; 309 W.A.C. 9; 180 C.C.C.(3d) 279; 18 C.R.(6th) 263; 2003 CarswellBC 2747; 2003 BCCA 593, refd to. [para. 79, footnote 27].

R. v. Spindloe (M.), [2002] 5 W.W.R. 239; 207 Sask.R. 3; 247 W.A.C. 3; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 42 C.R.(5th) 58; 2001 SKCA 58, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 28].

R. v. Carlston (L.) (2003), 238 Sask.R. 183; 305 W.A.C. 183; 2003 CarswellSask 789; 2003 SKCA 106, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 28].

R. v. Sewell (E.E.) (2003), 232 Sask.R. 210; 294 W.A.C. 210; 175 C.C.C.(3d) 242; 38 M.V.R.(4th) 190; 2003 CarswellSask 407; 2003 SKCA 52, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 28].

R. v. Smith (W.M.), [1998] 8 W.W.R. 620; 219 A.R. 109; 179 W.A.C. 109; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 62; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 331; 62 Alta. L.R.(3d) 105; 53 C.R.R.(2d) 353; 1998 CarswellAlta 503; 1998 ABCA 418, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 28].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165; 48 C.R.R. 112; 73 O.R.(2d) 736; 1990 CarswellOnt 96, refd to. [para. 89, footnote 30].

R. v. Ellerman (B.H.), [2000] 6 W.W.R. 704; 255 A.R. 149; 220 W.A.C. 149; 50 M.V.R.(3d) 290; 72 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 79 Alta. L.R.(3d) 205; 2000 CarswellAlta 142, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 31].

R. v. Elias (D.J.) (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 13; 304 W.A.C. 13; 174 C.C.C.(3d) 512; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 630; 40 M.V.R.(4th) 1; 107 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 630; 2003 MBCA 72, leave to appeal granted (2004), 328 N.R. 199; 192 Man.R.(2d) 160; 340 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 92, footnote 32].

Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 21 C.R.(5th) 1; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 672; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 39 M.V.R.(3d) 133; 59 C.R.R.(2d) 5; 43 O.R.(3d) 223; 1998 CarswellOnt 5020, leave to appeal granted (2000), 252 N.R. 198; 133 O.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 12 O.R.(3d) 182; 20 C.R.(4th) 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 338; 1993 CarswellOnt 727 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98, footnote 34].

R. v. Ferris (T.L.), [1998] 9 W.W.R. 14; 108 B.C.A.C. 244; 176 W.A.C. 244; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 298; 16 C.R.(5th) 287; 162 D.L.R.(4th) 87; 54 C.R.R.(2d) 62; 50 B.C.L.R.(3d) 109; 1998 CarswellBC 1300 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 236 N.R. 390; 122 B.C.A.C. 280; 200 W.A.C. 280 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 35].

R. v. Brown (L.D.) (2003), 180 B.C.A.C. 48; 297 W.A.C. 48; 2003 BCCA 141, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 36].

R. v. Hunt (D.W.) (2003), 186 B.C.A.C. 24; 306 W.A.C. 24; 110 C.R.R.(2d) 110; 2003 CarswellBC 2080; 2003 BCCA 434, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 37].

R. v. Klippenstein, [1981] 3 W.W.R. 111; 26 A.R. 568; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 393; 19 C.R.(3d) 56; 1981 CarswellAta 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123, footnote 40].

R. v. Polashek (P.K.) (1999), 118 O.A.C. 312; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 187; 25 C.R.(5th) 183; 48 M.V.R.(3d) 174; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 350; 62 C.R.R.(2d) 331; 45 O.R.(3d) 434; 1999 CarswellOnt 909 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126, footnote 41].

R. v. Whitfield, [1970] S.C.R. 46; 1969 CarswellOnt 138, refd to. [para. 130, footnote 42].

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

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; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 48 C.R.(4th) 199; 208 D.L.R.(4th) 207; 90 C.R.R.(2d) 55; [2002] G.S.T.C. 12; 2002 CarswellNB 44; 2002 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 136, footnote 44].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250; 1 C.R.(4th) 1; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 460; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 277; 1990 CarswellOnt 58, refd to. [para. 138, footnote 45].

R. v. MacDonald (P.C.) et al. (2000), 134 O.A.C. 167; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 525; 35 C.R.(5th) 130; 49 O.R.(3d) 417; 2000 CarswellOnt 2416 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 144, footnote 46].

Noiles v. Chase et al., [2004] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 76; 2004 CarswellNS 194; 2004 NSCA 63, refd to. [para. 144, footnote 46].

R. v. Lee (S.T.) et al. - see R. v. Wu (J.J.) et al.

R. v. Wu (J.J.) et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 141; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 2002 CarswellOnt 4233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145, footnote 47].

R. v. Penney (J.S.) (2002), 210 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 209; 630 A.P.R. 209; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 329; 2002 NFCA 15, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 47].

United States v. Arvizu (R.) (2002), 534 U.S. 266 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 147, footnote 48].

R. v. Lam (T.K.) et al. - see R. v. Dinh (H.T.).

R. v. Dinh (H.T.), [2003] 10 W.W.R. 608; 330 A.R. 63; 299 W.A.C. 63; 178 C.C.C.(3d) 59; 11 C.R.(6th) 58; 16 Alta. L.R.(4th) 26; 2003 CarswellAlta 911; 2003 ABCA 201, refd to. [para. 150, footnote 49].

R. v. Tessling (W.) (2004), 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168 (S.C.C.), reving. (2003), 168 O.A.C. 124; 171 C.C.C.(3d) 361; 9 C.R.(6th) 36; 63 O.R.(3d) 1; 2003 CarswellOnt 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 150, footnote 50].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293; 119 N.R. 321; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 80 C.R.(3d) 235; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 554; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 299; 1990 CarswellBC 217, refd to. [para. 165, footnote 51].

Adams v. United States; Ex rel McCann (1942), 317 U.S. 269 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 166, footnote 52].

Michigan v. Harvey (1990), 494 U.S. 344 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 166, footnote 52].

R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 46; 13 C.R.(5th) 34; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 38 O.R.(3d) 540; 50 C.R.R.(2d) 358; 1998 CarswellOnt 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 172, footnote 55].

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; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 5 C.R.(5th) 1; 42 C.R.R.(2d) 189; 1997 CarswellNB 107, refd to. [para. 172, footnote 56].

R. v. Schmautz, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 398; 106 N.R. 81; 20 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 75 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 245; 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 193; 45 C.R.R. 245; 1990 CarswellBC 65, refd to. [para. 185, footnote 59].

R. v. Paternak (C.D.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 607; 203 N.R. 250; 187 A.R. 395; 127 W.A.C. 395; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 382; 2 C.R.(5th) 119; 44 Alta. L.R.(3d) 201; 1996 CarswellAlta 948, refd to. [para. 185, footnote 60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Twain, Mark, Tom Sawyer, Detective (1835-1910), c. 10 [para. 82, footnote 29].

Counsel:

Greg Rice, for the Crown;

Jan Ter Hart, for the accused, Randy Sai Lee and David Kim;

Walter Raponi, for the accused, Ho Sung Kim.

Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, heard this matter on June 28, 29 and 30, 2004, and delivered judgment orally on June 30, 2004, and the following edited version of the oral judgment on July 28, 2004.