R. v. Levesque (C.R.), (2007) 267 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147 (PEITD)

• Judge: Campbell, J.
• Case Date: May 25, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (2007), 267 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147 (PEITD);2007 PESCTD 19

R. v. Levesque (C.R.) (2007), 267 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147 (PEITD);

    811 A.P.R. 147

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. MY.031

Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher Roland Levesque

(S1-GC-559; 2007 PESCTD 19)

Indexed As: R. v. Levesque (C.R.)

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

Trial Division

Campbell, J.

May 25, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was charged with firearms offences. The accused moved for an order quashing a search warrant and excluding from evidence any items seized under authority of the warrant on the ground that the issuance and execution of the warrant violated the accused's rights against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the motion.

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - Police obtained a search warrant to search the accused's business based on three incidents (a stolen rifle, a lost handgun found in a field and a prohibited firearm) linked to the accused - As a result of the evidence seized, the accused was charged with firearms offences - The accused moved for an order quashing a search warrant and excluding from evidence any items seized under authority of the warrant on the ground that the issuance and execution of the warrant violated the accused's rights against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter - He asserted that the Informant who swore the "Information to Obtain a Search Warrant" (ITO), had insufficient personal knowledge of the matters contained in the ITO to provide him with "reasonable grounds to believe" that a search and seizure would produce evidence with respect to the commission of offences - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the motion - The Informant was a member of the National Weapons Enforcement Support Team and had worked and shared information with officers involved in the incidents - See paragraphs 16 to 18.

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - Police obtained a search warrant to search the accused's business based on three incidents (a stolen rifle, a lost handgun found in a field and a prohibited firearm) linked to the accused - As a result of the evidence seized, the accused was charged with firearms offences - The accused moved for an order quashing a search warrant and excluding from evidence any items seized under authority of the warrant on the ground that the issuance and execution of the warrant violated the accused's rights against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter - He asserted that there was insufficient information upon which the justice of the peace who granted the warrant could satisfy herself there were reasonable grounds for the Informant's belief to exist - The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the motion - There was sufficient information on which the Informant could reasonably rely on his belief that a warrant would produce evidence of violations of the Criminal Code - The nature and sources of the information provided in the Information to Obtain were sufficiently detailed, reliable, and assessable to allow the justice of the peace to make her own determination as to whether there were reasonable grounds to believe evidence of the commission of the listed offences would be found on the premises - See paragraphs 19 to 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 3046

Special powers - Search warrants - Validity of - General - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1604 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3097

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - Contents of information or application for issue of - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1604 ].

Cases Noticed:

Cooper v. Kerwin (1982), 38 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 446; 108 A.P.R. 446; 3 C.C.C.(3d) 264 (P.E.I.S.C.), dist. [para. 14].

R. v. Shiers (J.G.) (2003), 219 N.S.R.(2d) 196; 692 A.P.R. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.) (2000), 186 N.S.R.(2d) 52; 581 A.P.R. 52 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Agensys International Inc. et al. (2004), 188 O.A.C. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

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. 33].

R. v. Morris (W.R.) (1998), 173 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 527 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Simonyi-Gindele et al. v. Sliter et al. (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 73; 5 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Trinh, 2005 BCPC 486, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Grewall (A.S.) et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 906; 2000 BCSC 820, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Colby (L.R.) (1999), 240 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Hofung (P.W.Z.) (2001), 143 O.A.C. 231; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Forsyth, [1993] A.J. No. 522 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

Valerie Moore, for the Crown;

Mitchell T. MacLeod, for the applicant.

This motion was heard on February 12, 26 and 27 and March 12-13, 2007, at Charlottetown, P.E.I.., by Campbell, J., of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on May 25, 2007.