R. v. McLay (S.W.), (2006) 299 N.B.R.(2d) 207 (PC)

• Judge: McKee, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: February 24, 2006
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2006), 299 N.B.R.(2d) 207 (PC);2006 NBPC 6

R. v. McLay (S.W.) (2006), 299 N.B.R.(2d) 207 (PC);

    299 R.N.-B.(2e) 207; 778 A.P.R. 207

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.014

Her Majesty the Queen v. Sean William McLay

(2006 NBPC 6)

Indexed As: R. v. McLay (S.W.)

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Judicial District of Moncton

McKee, P.C.J.

February 24, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine. The accused sought to exclude evidence, asserting that his ss. 7, 8 and 9 and 10(b) Charter rights were violated.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court admitted the evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 644

Liberty - Limitations on - Police investi­gation - Three police officers were patrol­ling a bus terminal as part of the Jetway project - The project was a national RCMP program involving officers, with special­ized training, monitoring the travelling public in an attempt to identify, investigate and arrest travelling criminals - They identified the accused as a person of inter­est - One officer (Tessier) identified him­self as a police officer and informed the accused that he was not in trouble and was free to leave at any time - Tessier asked to search his duffle bag - The accused refused - Tessier asked him if he would mind if their police dog sniffed the bag - Tessier took the reply of "yea" as the accused's agreement, got up and went outside to the dog - The accused followed - The dog gave a positive indication - The accused was arrested - A search of the bag revealed cocaine - The New Brunswick Provincial Court rejected an assertion that the Jetway program interfered with one's liberty or security of the person such as to bring about an infringement of s. 7 of the Char­ter - See paragraph 10.

Civil Rights - Topic 1410.2

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Investigation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 644 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - Three police officers were patrolling a bus terminal with a police dog - They identified the accused as a person of interest based on his behaviour - The dog showed an interest in the accused - One officer (Tessier) sat next to the ac­cused, while a second officer stood behind him - Tessier identified himself as a police officer and informed the accused that he was not in trouble and was free to leave at any time - Tessier asked to search his duffle bag - The accused refused - Tessier asked him if he would mind if the dog sniffed the bag - Tessier took the reply of "yea" as the accused's agreement and went outside to the dog - The accused followed - The dog gave a positive indication - The accused was arrested - A search of the bag revealed cocaine - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the accused was not arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter - Alternatively, Tessier had a reasonable suspicion that justified an inves­tigative detention - The accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy respecting the odours emanating from the bag - The dog sniff did not constitute a search under s. 8 - The search incidental to the arrest was lawful - Even if there were Charter breaches, admission of the cocaine would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 11 to 40.

Civil Rights - Topic 1641.4

Property - Search and seizure - Drug-snif­fing dogs - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1642

Property - Search and seizure - Search - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Un­reasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Police - Topic 3185

Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Kang-Brown (G.) (2005), 386 A.R. 48 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 16].

R. v. Rajaratnam (M.) (2005), 388 A.R. 69 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Soares (1987), 19 O.A.C. 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Morin (1987), 21 O.A.C. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Voss (1989), 33 O.A.C. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 136, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Gosse (R.W.) (2005), 292 N.B.R.(2d) 254; 761 A.P.R. 254; 2005 CarswellNB 450 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. C.R.H. (2003), 173 Man.R.(2d) 113; 293 W.A.C. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. McCarthy (T.J.) (2005), 239 N.S.R.(2d) 23; 760 A.P.R. 23 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Arabi (H.) (2002), 313 A.R. 269 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Hoang (T.V.) (2000), 284 A.R. 201 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Hoffart, [2001] A.J. No. 1605 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 12 O.R.(3d) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Carson (R.M.) (1998), 207 N.B.R.(2d) 39; 529 A.P.R. 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Caissie (D.B.) (1999), 214 N.B.R.(2d) 360; 547 A.P.R. 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Robichaud (D.) (2002), 253 N.B.R.(2d) 107; 660 A.P.R. 107 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Clayton (W.) et al. (2005), 196 O.A.C. 16 (C.A.), dist. [para. 26].

R. v. Batzer (N.) (2005), 202 O.A.C. 87; 2005 CarswellOnt 4395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Byfield (C.A.) (2005), 194 O.A.C. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Mitchell (C.) (2005), 295 N.B.R.(2d) 251; 766 A.P.R. 251; 2005 NBCA 104, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Tessling (W.) (2004), 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 23, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Wong (S.), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 36].

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, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Mercer (R.S.) (2004), 362 A.R. 136 (Prov. Ct.), agreed with [para. 38].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 44].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stuart, Don, Article (2005), 31 C.R.(6th) 255, generally [para. 37].

Counsel:

Harald A. Mattson, for the defence;

Gilles Daigle, for the Crown, as agent for the Attorney General of Canada.

This matter was heard before McKee, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following decision on February 24, 2006.