R. v. Lindsay (D.K.), (1999) 137 Man.R.(2d) 68 (QB)

• Judge: Steel, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: Friday April 23, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1999), 137 Man.R.(2d) 68 (QB)

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (1999), 137 Man.R.(2d) 68 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.022

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

(CR 98-01-19856)

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Gordon Denis Gillespie (applicant)

(CR 98-01-20113)

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

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Steel, J.

April 23, 1999.

Summary:

Two accused required to appear in court claimed that the perimeter security program at the Winnipeg Law Courts complex viol­ated their rights to be secure from an unrea­sonable search and seizure (Charter, s. 8) and that the failure to implement the same program in other Manitoba courthouses violated their equality rights (Charter, s. 15).

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its process extended to implementing a security program to ensure safe public access to the justice system without fear of physical violence. The security program, per se, was reasonable, but it was still open to question the reasonableness of any particular search on the ground that it fell outside the parameters of the program. Finally, the failure to implement the security program in all other Manitoba courthouses did not viol­ate s. 15.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expecta­tion of privacy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1641.1].

Civil Rights - Topic 1641.1

Property - Search and seizure - Courthouse security programs - The ju­diciary instituted a perimeter security program at the Winnipeg Law Courts complex - Public access was limited to two entrances - All persons except those with security clear­ance (lawyers, judges, officials, etc.) were required to pass through an entrance scan­ner - If the entrance scanner was activated, a hand scanner was used to locate the metal object - If the hand scanner was activated, a private search was required before entrance was permitted - Persons not consenting to be searched were free to leave, unless it was decided that they were carrying a prohibited weapon - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the security program did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure (Char­ter, s. 8) - Absent statutory authority for the program, it was authorized under the court's inherent juris­diction to ensure justice was adminis­tered in a regular, orderly and effective manner - Physical and electronic searches of persons entering courthouses for the pur­pose of screening for weapons were auth­orized by law and the program imple­ment­ed was reasonable -The court noted the reduced expectation of privacy of persons entering a courtroom - See para­graphs 8 to 89.

Civil Rights - Topic 5642.1

Equality and protection of the law - Incremental or selective implementation of legislative programs - A perimeter security program was instituted by the judiciary for the Winnipeg Law Courts complex - This type of security program was not imple­mented elsewhere in Manitoba - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the failure to implement the program in every Manitoba courthouse did not violate equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter - See paragraphs 90 to 96.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8312].

Civil Rights - Topic 8312

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application - Court orders - The judiciary instituted a perimeter secur­ity program at the Winnipeg Law Courts complex - The program was challenged as constituting and unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The Crown proceeded on the premise that the program instituted by the judiciary must not be contrary to s. 8 - The Mani­toba Court of Queen's Bench raised the issue, but found it unnecessary to decide, whether a court order made under the court's inherent jurisdiction was subject to Charter scrutiny, where s. 32 limited the application of the Charter to government action - See paragraphs 56 to 60.

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1641.1].

Cases Noticed:

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. 17].

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. 18].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, refd to. [para. 19].

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, affing. [1985] 5 W.W.R. 421 (B.C.C.A), affing. [1984] 1 W.W.R. 399 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Hothi et al. (1985), 33 Man.R.(2d) 180 (Q.B.), affd. (1985), 35 Man.R.(2d) 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

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; 38 C.R.R. 252; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. M.R.M. (1998), 233 N.R. 1; 171 N.S.R.(2d) 125; 519 A.P.R. 125 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Faulds (D.A.); R. v. Tyler (A.) (1996), 94 O.A.C. 335; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Legere (A.) (1991), 116 N.B.R.(2d) 350; 293 A.P.R. 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Jones (E.) (1996), 5 O.T.C. 81; 29 O.R.(3d) 294 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 1].

R. v. McNeill (S.R.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 363; 29 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 1].

R. v. McArthur (M.G.) and McArthur (A.J.) (1996), 34 O.T.C. 370 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 1].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, dist. [para. 35].

Bozer v. Higgins (1994), 204 A.D.2d 979; 613 N.Y.S.2d 312, refd to. [para. 36].

McMorris v. Aliota (1978), 567 F.2d 897, refd to. [para. 36].

Downing v. Kunzig (1972), 454 F.2d 1230, refd to. [para. 36].

Jensen v. Pontiac (City), 113 Mich. App. 341; 28 A.L.R.4th 1240, refd to. [para. 37].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 58].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 58].

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. 61].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Godoy (V.) (1998), 235 N.R. 134; 117 O.A.C. 127 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Samra (K.S.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 328 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Col­um­bia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 92].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 93].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 306, refd to. [para. 94].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 95].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Greenberg, Shawn, Section 1 of the Char­ter: A Primer for the Occasional Visitor (Manitoba Judicial Education Seminar, Recent Developments in the Law -- Judicial Review and s. 1 of the Charter, March 5, 1999), generally [para. 58].

Jacob, I.H., The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970), 23 Curr. Legal Prob­lems 23, pp. 24 [para. 26]; 27 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Heather Leonoff, Q.C., for Her Majesty The Queen;

D.K. Lindsay, on his own behalf;

R. Ian Histed, for G.D. Gillespie;

Ann Krahn, conducting a watching brief on behalf of the government of Canada.

These applications were heard before Steel, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the follow­ing judgment on April 23, 1999.