R. v. Lindsay (D.K.), (1999) 142 Man.R.(2d) 96 (CA)

JudgePhilp, Twaddle and Monnin, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Manitoba)
Case DateDecember 24, 1999
JurisdictionManitoba
Citations(1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 96 (CA)

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 96 (CA);

    212 W.A.C. 96

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.025

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

(AR 99-30-04192)

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

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Philp, Twaddle and Monnin, JJ.A.

December 24, 1999.

Summary:

Two accused (Lindsay and Gillespie) 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, in a judgment reported 137 Man.R.(2d) 68, 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. Gillespie appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that statutory or com­mon law authority for the program was not established on the evidence. Accordingly, all arbitrary searches con­ducted under the per­imeter security program were contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1641.1

Property - Search and seizure - Court­house security programs - A perimeter security program was imple­mented at the Winnipeg Law Courts com­plex - Public access was limited to two entrances - All persons except those with security clear­ance were required to pass through an entrance scan­ner - If the scanner was activated, a hand scanner was used - If the hand scan­ner was activated, a private search was required before entrance was permitted - Persons declining to be searched could leave, unless it was decided that they were carry­ing a pro­hibited weapon - The trial judge 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 Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the program was not authorized by law where there was no evidence that the program was im­plemented in response to a request, direc­tion or order of the Court of Queen's Bench - Further, absent statu­tory or inherent jurisdiction by the courts, the sheriff did not have the statutory or com­mon law authority to implement the pro­gram - The court stated that "it may well be that a statute or properly sanc­tioned subordinate legislation authorizing a per­imeter security program similar to the program that is presently challenged would be found to be reasonable".

Courts - Topic 2004

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

Sheriffs - Topic 1005

Powers - Courthouse security - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1641.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 11].

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. 11].

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. 14].

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. 15].

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, dist. [para. 16].

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].

Balogh v. Crown Court at St. Alban's, [1974] 3 All E.R. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 1].

R. v. Godoy (V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; 235 N.R. 134; 117 O.A.C. 127, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Stenning, [1970] S.C.R. 631, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 4].

R. v. Knowlton, [1974] S.C.R. 443, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 4].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 10].

Court of Queen's Bench Act, S.M. 1988-89, c. 4; C.C.S.M., c. C-280, sect. 16 [para. 13].

Interpretation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. I-80; C.C.S.M., c. I-80, sect. 19(1)(b) [para. 13].

Sheriffs Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. S-100; C.C.S.M., c. S-100, sect. 1(3) [para. 31].

Counsel:

R.I. Histed, for the appellant;

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

This appeal was heard on November 22, 1999, before Philp, Twaddle and Monnin, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On December 24, 1999, Philp, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Gillespie v. Man. (A.G.),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • April 20, 2000
    ...in all other Manitoba courthouses did not violate s. 15. Gillespie appealed. The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 142 Man.R.(2d) 96; 212 W.A.C. 96 , allowed the appeal on the ground that statutory or common law authority for the program was not established on the evidence. ......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Large-Scale Claims Interjurisdictional Dimensions
    • June 15, 2005
    ...170, [1987] M.J. No. 591 (C.A.) ................................................................................ 65 R. v. Gillespie (1999), 142 Man.R. (2d) 96, [1999] M.J. No. 562 (C.A.).............. 357 R. v. Gillespie (2000), 145 Man.R. (2d) 229, [2000] M.J. No. 218 (C.A.).... 164 , 357 ......
  • Class Proceedings
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Large-Scale Claims The Law of Aggregate Claims
    • June 15, 2005
    ...representative action rule, because, inter alia , 192 [2002] M.J. No. 278, 2002 MBQB 196 [hereinafter Scott ]. 193 R. v. Gillespie (1999), 142 Man. R. (2d) 96 (C.A.); R. v. Gillespie , [2000] M.J. No. 218 (C.A.). THE LAW OF LARGE-SCALE CLAIMS 358 there was not a single measure of damages ap......
  • Figueiras v. York (Regional Municipality) et al., 2015 ONCA 208
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • November 21, 2014
    ...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. 52]. R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 96; 212 W.A.C. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Campanella (J.) (2005), 196 O.A.C. 188; 75 O.R.(3d) 342 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58]. R. v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Gillespie v. Man. (A.G.),
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • April 20, 2000
    ...in all other Manitoba courthouses did not violate s. 15. Gillespie appealed. The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 142 Man.R.(2d) 96; 212 W.A.C. 96 , allowed the appeal on the ground that statutory or common law authority for the program was not established on the evidence. ......
  • Figueiras v. York (Regional Municipality) et al., 2015 ONCA 208
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • November 21, 2014
    ...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. 52]. R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 96; 212 W.A.C. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Campanella (J.) (2005), 196 O.A.C. 188; 75 O.R.(3d) 342 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58]. R. v......
  • Neufeld v. Manitoba, 2001 MBQB 201
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • October 23, 2001
    ...Certification - Considerations - When class action appropriate - [See Practice - Topic 209.1 ]. Cases Noticed: R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 96; 212 W.A.C. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Gillespie - see R. v. Lindsay (D.K.). Gillespie v. Manitoba (Attorney General) (2000), 1......
  • Langenfeld v. TPSB, 2018 ONSC 3447
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • June 18, 2018
    ...just” to suspend the declarations. In this respect, I agree with the analysis of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. Gillespie (1999), 142 Man. R. (2d) 96 at para. [161] I did not hear submissions regarding costs during the hearing of the application. If the parties are unable to come to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Large-Scale Claims Interjurisdictional Dimensions
    • June 15, 2005
    ...170, [1987] M.J. No. 591 (C.A.) ................................................................................ 65 R. v. Gillespie (1999), 142 Man.R. (2d) 96, [1999] M.J. No. 562 (C.A.).............. 357 R. v. Gillespie (2000), 145 Man.R. (2d) 229, [2000] M.J. No. 218 (C.A.).... 164 , 357 ......
  • Class Proceedings
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Large-Scale Claims The Law of Aggregate Claims
    • June 15, 2005
    ...representative action rule, because, inter alia , 192 [2002] M.J. No. 278, 2002 MBQB 196 [hereinafter Scott ]. 193 R. v. Gillespie (1999), 142 Man. R. (2d) 96 (C.A.); R. v. Gillespie , [2000] M.J. No. 218 (C.A.). THE LAW OF LARGE-SCALE CLAIMS 358 there was not a single measure of damages ap......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT