R. v. Lindsay (D.K.), (2001) 158 Man.R.(2d) 176 (QB)

• Judge: Jewers, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: September 11, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2001), 158 Man.R.(2d) 176 (QB);2001 MBQB 226

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (2001), 158 Man.R.(2d) 176 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.033

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. David Kevin Lindsay (applicant)

(CR 00-01-21822; 2001 MBQB 226)

Indexed As: R. v. Lindsay (D.K.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Jewers, J.

September 11, 2001.

Summary:

The applicant filed a constitutional challenge to the Court Security Act.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 1641.1

Property - Search and seizure - Courthouse security programs - Section 4(1) of the Court Security Act provided that "a security officer may screen a person for weapons before the person enters a court area" - The applicant filed a constitutional challenge to the Court Security Act, relying on the protection from unreasonable search and seizure in s. 8 of the Charter - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The legislature was reasonable in their concern for the safety of persons in the courthouse complex and reasonable in authorizing a program designed to reduce the number of weapons being carried into the court complex - The searches authorized by the program were relatively non-intrusive - The fact that discretion was given to security officers to determine what was a weapon did not affect the constitutionality of the system - A requirement for prior authorization based on reasonable and probable grounds would not be feasible - See paragraphs 12 to 31 and 40 to 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - Section 4(1) of the Court Security Act provided that "a security officer may screen a person for weapons before the person enters a court area" - Weapon was defined in s. 1 of the Act as "... a firearm as defined in the Criminal Code (Canada) and anything else that could be used to: (a) cause death or serious bodily harm to a person, or (b) threaten or intimidate a person" - The applicant filed a constitutional challenge to the Court Security Act, arguing that the definition of weapon in the Act was so vague as to amount to a violation of s. 7 of the Charter - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the legislation was not unconstitutionally vague - See paragraphs 49 to 53.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Overbreadth principle - Section 4(1) of the Court Security Act provided that "a security officer may screen a person for weapons before the person enters a court area" - Weapon was defined in the Act as "... a firearm as defined in the Criminal Code (Canada) and anything else that could be used to: (a) cause death or serious bodily harm to a person, or (b) threaten or intimidate a person" - The applicant filed a constitutional challenge to the Court Security Act, arguing that the legislation was overbroad in that it permitted the security officers to conduct a fishing expedition - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench rejected the overbreadth argument - The court stated that "[w]hile the object of the searches - for 'weapons' - may be very broad, nevertheless the means chosen are not: the searches are minimally intrusive and strictly limited to those stipulated in the Act" - See paragraphs 54 to 57.

Courts - Topic 1403

Administration - Access to courts - Section 4(1) of the Court Security Act provided that "a security officer may screen a person for weapons before the person enters a court area" - The applicant filed a constitutional challenge to the Court Security Act, arguing that the security system impeded the right of a citizen to access to the courts - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court stated that "The program does impede the right of access to the court complex, but only for the limited purpose of preventing persons from carrying dangerous weapons into the premises. This safety measure justifies this limited impairment of the right" - See paragraphs 38 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

Gillespie v. Manitoba (Attorney General) (2000), 145 Man.R.(2d) 229; 218 W.A.C. 229; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), consd. [para. 2].

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; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Gillespie (G.D.) (2000), 149 Man.R.(2d) 196 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Skuse (E.T.) v. Australia (Commonwealth), [1985] No. NTG 7 (Aust. Fed. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 30].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

Bacon et al. v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. et al. (1999), 180 Sask.R. 20; 205 W.A.C. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 38].

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. 40].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296, refd to. [para. 41].

Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Potash et Sélection Milton, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 406; 168 N.R. 241; 61 Q.A.C. 241; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 315, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. M.R.M., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393; 233 N.R. 1; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 468 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 348; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 34 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 55].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 351; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 43 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Court Security Act, S.M. 2000, c. 1; C.C.S.M. c. C-295, sect. 1 [para. 50]; sect. 4(1) [para. 7].

Counsel:

The applicant appeared in person;

H. Leonoff, Q.C., for the respondent.

This application was heard before Jewers, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on September 11, 2001.