R. v. Ling (M.D.), (2009) 266 B.C.A.C. 281 (CA)

JudgeDonald, Huddart and Bauman, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (British Columbia)
Case DateNovember 28, 2008
JurisdictionBritish Columbia
Citations(2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 281 (CA);2009 BCCA 70

R. v. Ling (M.D.) (2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 281 (CA);

    449 W.A.C. 281

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.046

Regina (respondent) v. Michael Donald Ling (appellant)

(CA036287; 2009 BCCA 70)

Indexed As: R. v. Ling (M.D.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Donald, Huddart and Bauman, JJ.A.

February 19, 2009.

Summary:

The accused appealed his convictions for unlawful cultivation of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and unlawful possession of a restricted weapon and of a prohibited weapon. The accused was also convicted of related firearm offences.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and entered acquittals.

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - Constable Erickson was golfing - On the 12th green, he glanced to his left, to the lands nearby, and saw what he believed to be marijuana plants - He moved closer and noted a small building - From previous dealings in the small community, Cst. Erickson believed that the building was on the accused's property - Based on Cst. Erickson's observations, Cst. McLachlan undertook an investigation - They obtained further information from an unnamed source (Source A), obtained a warrant and searched the accused's property - They found, inter alia, an indoor marijuana grow operation, the outdoor plants, scales, firearms and ammunition - The accused was convicted of drug and firearm offences - He appealed, asserting a violation of his s. 8 Charter right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure - He asserted that Cst. McLachlan, by failing to disclose Source A in his Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant, breached his duty to make full and frank disclosure of material facts to the authorizing judge and that the search warrant was thus invalid - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - By omitting to disclose Source A to the authorizing justice, police prevented that justice from assessing the reliability of Source A in "the totality of the circumstances", a task central to the consideration of issuing a search warrant based in large part on a tipster's information - The obligation to make full and frank disclosure did not require the affiant to disclose every fact which might possibly be relevant - It required full disclosure of material facts - Here there had been a total failure to disclose a very material fact, Source A and his or her information - Accordingly, the search warrant was invalid and the search and seizure violated s. 8 of the Charter - The evidence was non-conscriptive and the trial fairness was not compromised - However, the serious breaches coupled with careless and cavalier errors in the preparation of the ITO demonstrated an absence of good faith - To admit the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1604 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3046

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

Criminal Law - Topic 3097

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

Criminal Law - Topic 3118

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - General - Evidence (incl. amplification evidence) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1604 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Berry (J.M) et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 1742; 2002 BCSC 1742, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Young (J.W.) (2008), 264 B.C.A.C. 1; 445 W.A.C. 1; 2008 BCCA 513, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Smith (L.K.) (2005), 213 B.C.A.C. 286; 352 W.A.C. 286; 199 C.C.C.(3d) 404; 2005 BCCA 334, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 2000 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Newfoundland and Labrador (2007), 270 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 117; 822 A.P.R. 117; 225 C.C.C.(3d) 144; 2007 NLCA 62, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Costa (2005), 130 C.R.R.(2d) 226 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Oakley (D.E.), [2002] B.C.T.C. 1837; 2002 BCSC 1837, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Newton (D.R.), [2003] B.C.T.C. 1197; 2003 BCSC 1197, refd to. [para. 32].

Maranda v. Leblanc, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 193; 311 N.R. 357; 2003 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 32].

Maranda v. Richer - see Maranda v. Leblanc.

R. v. U.P.M. (2008), 310 Sask.R. 165; 423 W.A.C. 165; 233 C.C.C.(3d) 465; 2008 SKCA 62, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Knight (G.) (2008), 281 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 863 A.P.R. 269; 2008 NLCA 67, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Creelman (P.K.) (2007), 254 N.S.R.(2d) 155; 810 A.P.R. 155; 155 C.R.R.(2d) 49; 2007 NSCA 51, refd to. [para. 33].

Silverstar Energy Inc. et al. v. R., [2004] B.C.T.C. 1115; 2004 BCSC 1115, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lyon (G.W.), [2002] B.C.T.C. 1212; 2002 BCSC 1212, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Maxwell (R.W.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 1200; 2004 BCSC 1200, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Chenier (J.R.) et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. B58; 2007 BCSC 263, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Nguyen (K.T.) (2007), 241 B.C.A.C. 244; 399 W.A.C. 244; 2007 BCCA 264, consd. [para. 34].

R. v. Nguyen (N.T.) - see R. v. Nguyen (K.T.).

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Chambers (1983), 9 C.C.C.(3d) 132 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Puskas (J.F.) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 310; 36 O.R.(3d) 474; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 548 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Le (T.T.) (2009), 268 B.C.A.C. 58; 452 W.A.C. 58; 2009 BCCA 14, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Bohn (J.A.) (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 263; 222 W.A.C. 263; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 320; 2000 BCCA 239, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Golub (D.J.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 176; 34 O.R.(3d) 743; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence (2004), pp. 683, 684 [para. 46].

Counsel:

D.M. Rosenberg and L. Landy, for the appellant;

J. Bowers, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 28, 2008, at Vancouver, B.C., by Donald, Huddart and Bauman, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Bauman, J.A., on February 19, 2009.

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 practice notes
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Criminal Law Series Search and Seizure
    • May 3, 2021
    ...413 Ling , R v , 2002 SCC 74 ................................................................... 261, 295 Ling , R v , 2009 BCCA 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Little , R v , 2......
  • The Warrant Application Process
    • Canada
    • Criminal Law Series Search and Seizure
    • May 3, 2021
    ...Singer , 2012 NSSC 238 at paras 33-41. 27 2015 ONSC 283. 28 Ibid at para 14. See also R v Erickson , 2003 BCCA 693 at para 33; R v Ling , 2009 BCCA 70 ; R v Le , 2009 BCCA 14 ; R v Clark , 2015 BCCA 488, af ’d 2017 SCC 3 ; R v McKenzie , 2016 ONSC 245 at paras 22-44. © [2021] Emond Montgome......
  • R. v. Clark (F.A.), (2015) 380 B.C.A.C. 15 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • November 6, 2015
    ...et al. (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 91 ; 450 W.A.C. 91 ; 243 C.C.C.(3d) 392 ; 2009 BCCA 89 , refd to. [para. 68]. R. v. Ling (M.D.) (2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 281; 449 W.A.C. 281 ; 241 C.C.C.(3d) 409 ; 2009 BCCA 70 , leave to appeal denied (2009), 399 N.R. 400 ; 285 B.C.A.C. 320 ; 482 W.A.C. 32......
  • R. v. Sipes (D.G.) et al., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1763
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • December 22, 2011
    ...v. Beaulieu , 2010 SCC 7, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 455; R. v. Morelli , 2010 SCC 8, 252 C.C.C. (3d) 273; R. v. Cornell , 2010 SCC 31; R. v. Ling , 2009 BCCA 70, 241 C.C.C. (3d) 409; R. v. Strilec , 2010 BCCA 198, 256 C.C.C. (3d) 403; R. v. Reddy , 2010 BCCA 11, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 151; and R. v. Laurien......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • R. v. Clark (F.A.), (2015) 380 B.C.A.C. 15 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • November 6, 2015
    ...et al. (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 91 ; 450 W.A.C. 91 ; 243 C.C.C.(3d) 392 ; 2009 BCCA 89 , refd to. [para. 68]. R. v. Ling (M.D.) (2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 281; 449 W.A.C. 281 ; 241 C.C.C.(3d) 409 ; 2009 BCCA 70 , leave to appeal denied (2009), 399 N.R. 400 ; 285 B.C.A.C. 320 ; 482 W.A.C. 32......
  • R. v. Sipes (D.G.) et al., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1763
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • December 22, 2011
    ...v. Beaulieu , 2010 SCC 7, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 455; R. v. Morelli , 2010 SCC 8, 252 C.C.C. (3d) 273; R. v. Cornell , 2010 SCC 31; R. v. Ling , 2009 BCCA 70, 241 C.C.C. (3d) 409; R. v. Strilec , 2010 BCCA 198, 256 C.C.C. (3d) 403; R. v. Reddy , 2010 BCCA 11, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 151; and R. v. Laurien......
  • R. v. Hatton (R.A.), (2011) 509 A.R. 262 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • April 7, 2011
    ...Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Hover (1999), 237 A.R. 30; 197 W.A.C. 30; 1999 ABCA 123, refd to. [para. 40]. R. v. Ling (M.D.) (2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 281; 449 W.A.C. 281; 241 C.C.C.(3d) 409; 2009 BCCA 70, refd to. [para. 41]. R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1;......
  • R. v. Rudiger (C.), 2011 BCSC 1397
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • October 19, 2011
    ...was satisfied that the particular breach in question, though serious, was not part of a pattern of conduct. Conversely, in R. v. Ling , 2009 BCCA 70 at para. 53, 241 C.C.C. (3d) 409, the court addressed two serious breaches and several examples of careless or cavalier errors in obtaining a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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