R. v. McKay (T.C.) et al., (1992) 134 A.R. 188 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 04, 1992
• Citations: (1992), 134 A.R. 188 (QB)

R. v. McKay (T.C.) (1992), 134 A.R. 188 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Terry Claude McKay, John Robert Gaw, John Ronald Skidd, Edmond Frank Presault and William Cecil Paul

(Action No. 9201-0306-C5)

Indexed As: R. v. McKay (T.C.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

November 4, 1992.

Summary:

The accused were charged with conspiracy to traffic in narcotics, trafficking and pos­session for the purpose of trafficking. Fol­lowing a warrantless search by Customs officials of a cargo container at a border crossing, 500 kilograms of cannabis resin was found. No person accompanied the container and no one claimed an interest in it. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the evidence. The accused claimed the warrantless search violated s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the evidence obtained should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the warrantless search was authorized under the Customs Act and did not consti­tute an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8. Alternatively, even if s. 8 were violated, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2), because admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - Expectation of privacy - [See second Customs - Topic 3003 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1655

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Customs - [See first Customs - Topic 3003 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See first Customs - Topic 3003 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8550

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Bring the administration of justice into disrepute - [See first Cus­toms - Topic 3003 ].

Customs - Topic 3003

Search and seizure - Application of search and seizure provisions - Warrantless search - A cargo container shipped from Holland to Montreal did not identify the exporter or importer - No one accomp­anied the container or claimed an interest in its contents, accordingly, there was no expectation of privacy - Customs officials, acting on information from the R.C.M.P. and Dutch officials, the suspicious nature of the bill of lading and the claimed con­tents, conducted a warrantless search by opening the container - Undeclared goods were found - Police narcotics sniffing dogs and x-rays revealed hidden goods in the panels of the container (500 kilograms of cannabis resin) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the warrantless search, authorized under s. 99 of the Cus­toms Act, did not violate s. 8 of the Char­ter - Alternatively, admission of the evi­dence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute (s. 24(2)).

Customs - Topic 3003

Search and seizure - Application of search and seizure provisions - Warrantless search - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "there is absolutely no expectation of 'privacy' for searches of unaccompanied goods, nor, in the recogni­tion of a state's right to protect its borders from illegal contraband, should there be a requirement to seek out a warrant any time Customs want to do at least a superficial examination of a container ... or a package of unaccompanied goods ... which they find suspicious, whether or not there is 'reasonable grounds' to do so." - See para­graph 37.

Customs - Topic 3003

Search and seizure - Application of search and seizure provisions - Warrantless search - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the reasonableness of border searches, within the meaning of s. 8 [Charter], must be treated with a lower standard of reasonable grounds than non-border situations on the basis that sover­eign states have the right to control what enters their boundaries for the general welfare of the nation, with physical searches being accepted aspects of the border search process where there are grounds for suspecting that prohibited goods are being transported." - See para­graph 46.

Customs - Topic 3003

Search and seizure - Application of search and seizure provisions - Warrantless search - Section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act empowered a Customs officer to ex­amine imported goods, open any package or container and take samples - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a Customs officer had the power to "ex­amine, inspect and search goods without any belief or suspicion of breach of any law or without any specific reason other than general enforcement of the custom laws themselves, or to see if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there might be a breach of a law." - Section 99(1)(a) "does authorize warrantless searches of unaccompanied goods at a border crossing at least up to the point of threatening the integrity of the package, and examining the goods without damage or destruction, including the dog search and x-ray." - See paragraphs 53, 55.

Customs - Topic 3003

Search and seizure - Application of search and seizure provisions - Warrantless search - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "resort to a warrantless search is available under s. 99(1)(e) [Cus­toms Act], if the officers 'suspect on rea­sonable grounds' that the Customs Act or other statute of Canada has been breached." - The court stated that suspi­cion alone could not constitute the right to proceed to a warrantless search under s. 99(1)(e) - See paragraphs, 57, 65.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Quillian (No. 2) (1991), 122 A.R. 131 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].

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

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 99, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 1; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Langlois and Bedard (1990), 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Porquez (1991), 114 A.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 1 C.R.(4th) 62; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 193; 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 157; 50 C.R.R. 285, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Plant (1991), 116 A.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

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; 18 C.E.R. 227; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Jagodic and Vajagic (1985), 68 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 159 A.P.R. 271; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 305 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Williams (1985), 49 C.R.(3d) 66 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19, foot­note 6].

Rollinson v. Canada (1991), 40 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Klimchuk (1991), 67 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Jordon (1984), 11 C.C.C.(3d) 565; 39 C.R.(3d) 50 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Bertram S. Miller Ltd. v. Canada, [1986] 3 F.C. 291; 69 N.R. 1; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 210 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc. (1990), 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 568 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. McComber (1988), 29 O.A.C. 311; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Therrien (1992), 129 A.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Généreux (1992), 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Wise (1992), 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 226 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 11]; sect. 8 [para. 7]; sect. 11(d) [para. 11]; sect. 24(2) [para. 7].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 4 [para. 11]; sect. 631(3), sect. 645(5) [para. 3].

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, sect. 2(1) [para. 16]; sect. 6, sect. 7, sect. 12, sect. 14, sect. 19, sect. 21 [para. 17]; sect. 99(1)(a), sect. 99(1)(e) [para. 14]; sect. 102, sect. 103, sect. 104, sect. 110, sect. 111(1), sect. 153, sect. 157, sect. 159 [para. 17].

Counsel:

J. Kitsul and R. Stanners, for the Crown;

A. Wenngatz, for the accused, McKay;

B. Der, for the accused, Gaw;

R. Mitchell, for the accused, Skidd;

B. Edy, for the accused, Presault;

J. Phipps, for the accused, Paul.

This voir dire was held before Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following ruling on November 4, 1992.