R. v. Lamy (R.M.J.)

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Citation: (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 179 (CA),1993 CanLII 3368 (MB CA),22 CR (4th) 89,80 CCC (3d) 558,15 CRR (2d) 62,19 WCB (2d) 350,41 WAC 179,85 Man R (2d) 179
• Date: 21 January 1993

R. v. Lamy (R.M.J.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 179 (CA);

    41 W.A.C. 179

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Richard Marcel Joseph Lamy (accused/respondent)

(Suit No. A.R. 92-30-00781)

Indexed As: R. v. Lamy (R.M.J.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Philp, J.A., and Barkman, J.(ad hoc)

April 8, 1993.

Summary:

The accused was acquitted on a charge of possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1651

Property - Search and seizure - War- rantless search and seizure, motor vehicles - The Thompson police received a tip that the accused was about to use his car to bring a quantity of "grass" to Thompson - The police, without a war­rant, intercepted the accused and searched his car and found a bag containing 20 pounds of marihuana - The trial judge excluded the real evi­dence under s. 24(2) of the Charter because the search was unreasonable and was in breach of both s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act and s. 8 of the Charter - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge.

Civil Rights - Topic 1650.2

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure, burden of proof - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the police bear the burden of justifying a warrantless search (see para­graph 9).

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of right - Remedies, exclusion of evidence - The police acting on a tip from an informant conducted a warrantless search of a car and found 20 pounds of marihuana - The police relied on a policy that involved an erroneous interpretation of s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act that resulted in sloppy police work - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision to exclude the evi­dence under s. 24(2) of the Charter - The trial judge found that the seriousness of the violation of the accused's rights justified the exclusion of the evidence (see para­graphs 24 to 38).

Criminal Law - Topic 3152

Power of search - Warrantless searches - Reasonable grounds - "Totality of cir­cumstances" test - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 2062 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2062

Search and seizure - Warrantless searches - Reasonable grounds - "Totality of cir­cumstances" test - The Manitoba Court of Appeal referred to the "totality of circum­stances" test to be applied when a court is weighing evidence relied on by the police to justify a warrantless search (see para­graph 12).

Narcotic Control - Topic 2066

Search and seizure - Warrantless searches - Statutory authority - The Thompson police relied on s. 10 of the Narcotic Con­trol Act to support warrantless searches in all cases involving a moving vehicle (see paragraph 28) - The Manitoba Court of Appeal described such a policy as "ill-founded" (see paragraph 38).

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286; 142 N.R. 141; 131 A.R. 81; 25 W.A.C. 81; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 3].

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. 9].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 54 C.R.(3d) 120; 26 C.R.R. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 357; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Borowski (1990), 66 Man.R.(2d) 49; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 87 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. MacDonald (1988), 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 177; 220 A.P.R. 177; 66 C.R.(3d) 189; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 134 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

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; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Zastowny (1992), 19 B.C.A.C. 206; 34 W.A.C. 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Rev­enue et al. (1993), 146 N.R. 270 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 452; 46 O.R.(2d) 80; 40 C.R.(3d) 1; 10 C.R.R. 275 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused 57 N.R. 238; 4 O.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. I.D.D., [1988] 1 W.W.R. 673; 60 Sask.R. 72; 61 C.R.(3d) 292; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Cheecham (1989), 40 Sask.R. 74; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 498 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Klimchuk (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 26; 9 W.A.C. 26; 8 C.R.(4th) 327; 32 M.V.R.(2d) 202; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

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. 23].

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. 25].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 25].

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. 27].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 29].

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. 30].

R. v. Hunter (1987), 19 O.A.C. 131; 57 C.R.(3d) 1; 59 O.R.(2d) 364; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301; 75 N.R. 149; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 726; 56 C.R.(3d) 220; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 24; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 110; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 611; 28 C.R.R. 148, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 67 C.R.(3d) 224; 37 C.R.R. 252, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Sanchez-Ruiz (1991), 121 N.B.R.(2d) 106; 304 A.P.R. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Duguay, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 67 C.R.(3d) 252; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 46; 38 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

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

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487 [para. 8]; sect. 676(1)(a) [para. 1].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 10 [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mitchell, Gerald, On Appealing Section 24(2) Decisions - The Supreme Court of Canada (1991), 49 C.R.R. 161, p. 162 [para. 37].

Counsel:

M.S. Dash, for the appellant;

H.E. Wolch, Q.C., and C.W. Martin, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 21, 1993, before Scott, C.J.M., Philp, J.A., and Barkman, J.(ad hoc), of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On April 8, 1993, Scott, C.J.M., delivered the following judgment for the court.