R. v. Monney (I.), (1997) 105 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Morden, A.C.J.O., Weiler and Rosenberg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: December 09, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 105 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

R. v. Monney (I.) (1997), 105 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.033

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Isaac Monney (appellant)

(20634)

Indexed As: R. v. Monney (I.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Morden, A.C.J.O., Weiler and Rosenberg, JJ.A.

November 28, 1997.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of importing narcotics contrary to s. 5(1) of the Narcotic Control Act. The accused allegedly imported heroin into Canada by swallowing 84 pellets con­taining the narcotic before departing by airplane from Switzer­land. The accused appealed arguing that his rights under ss. 7, 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated because of the way he was detained at the airport and therefore the evidence concerning the nar­cotics should be excluded under s. 24 of the Charter.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Weiler, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and entered an acquittal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - What constitutes unreason­able search and seizure - An accused, who arrived on an international flight, was detained and strip searched by customs authorities (Customs Act, s. 98) - He re­fused to provide a urine sample - He was then told he would be detained until he consented or had a bowel movement - He consulted counsel and provided a urine sample which tested positive for heroin - He was arrested - Shortly thereafter he admitted to swallowing pellets containing heroin and four hours later passed the pellets - He was turned over to police - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the warrantless seizure of the narcotics was not justified as a search incidental to arrest because the arrest was not lawful nor jus­tified under s. 98 because the search was not conducted within a reasonable time after the accused's arrival - The seizure was unlawful and unreasonable and vio­lated the Charter, s. 8 - See paragraphs 99 to 101.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - What constitutes unreason­able search and seizure - An accused who ar­rived on an international flight was de­tained and strip searched by customs au­thorities (Customs Act, s. 98) - He refused to provide a urine sample - He was then told he would be detained until he con­sented or had a bowel movement - He consulted counsel and provided a urine sample which tested positive for heroin - He was arrested - Shortly thereafter he admitted to swallowing pellets containing heroin and four hours later passed the pellets - He was turned over to police - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the seizure of the urine sample was contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The sample was ob­tained during an unlawful and arbitrary detention - His consent was not valid - The customs officers' conduct may also have violated s. 7 of the Charter - See para­graphs 92 to 97.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - What constitutes unreason­able search and seizure - An accused who ar­rived on an international flight was de­tained and strip searched by customs au­thorities (Customs Act, s. 98) - The On­tario Court of Appeal held that the strip search was not authorized by s. 98 because the accused was detained for approximate­ly two hours before he was strip searched (i.e., the detention was not necessary to carry out the search) and secondly the strip search was not conducted "within a rea­sonable time" after the accused's arrival in Canada within the meaning of s. 98 - Since the search was not authorized by law, the accused's rights under s. 8 of the Charter were violated - See paragraphs 36 to 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 1423

Security of the person - Border searches - Strip searches - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1424

Security of the person - Border searches - Urine testing - [See second Civil Rights -Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1428

Security of the person - Border searches - Seizure of narcotics etc. - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1435

Security of the person - Border searches - Medical attention for detainees - An ac­cused who arrived on an international flight was suspected of having swallowed heroin - Customs officers detained him until he admitted to swallowing pellets of heroin and passed the pellets - The Ontario Court of Appeal declined to decide wheth­er s. 7 of the Charter was violated because the customs officers failed to get medical attention for the accused once they learned he had swallowed heroin, but opined that the court would have difficulty in finding that this deprivation occurred in accor­dance with the principles of funda­mental justice - The court commented that the policy at Pearson International Airport regarding medical attention for detainees appeared inconsistent with official policy and needlessly exposed individuals to serious risk of harm - See paragraphs 102 to 109.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - An accused who arrived on an international flight was detained and strip searched by customs authorities (Customs Act, s. 98) - He refused to provide a urine sample - He was then told he would be detained until he consented or had a bowel movement - He consulted counsel and provided a urine sample which tested positive for heroin - He was arrested - Shortly thereafter he admitted to swallowing pellets containing heroin and four hours later passed the pellets - He was then put into RCMP custody - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the detention was unlawful and violated his right to be secure against arbitrary detention in s. 9 of the Charter - The customs officers had no justification for detaining the accused for an extended time based solely on reasonable suspicion -See paragraphs 88 to 91.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - An accused who arrived on an international flight was detained and strip searched by customs authorities (Customs Act, s. 98) - He refused to pro­vide a urine sample - He was then told he would be detained until he consented or had a bowel movement - He consulted counsel and provided a urine sample which tested positive for heroin - He was arrested - Shortly thereafter he admitted to swal­lowing pellets containing heroin and four hours later passed the pellets - He was then put into RCMP custody - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the accused was unlawfully detained and subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure - Admis­sion of the accused's statements, urinalysis and the finding of the narcotics would affect the fairness of the trial and should be excluded (Charter, s. 24) - See para­graphs 110 to 125.

Courts - Topic 103

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - English, American and foreign authorities - American decisions - The Ontario Court of Appeal examined the United States authorities in determining whether the extended detention of a trav­eller suspected of having swallowed drugs was authorized under s. 98 of the Cus­toms Act - See paragraphs 54 to 67.

Customs - Topic 2826

Report and entry inwards - Customs officers - Powers and duties - Arrest and detention - A primary customs inspector had a "doubt" about the accused who arrived on an international flight and re­ferred him to a secondary inspector - The secondary inspector interviewed the ac­cused, detained him, read him his rights and summoned officers who dealt with drug smugglers - The officers also formed a suspicion, read him his rights, took him to a special area, advised him of s. 98 (Cus­toms Act) and strip searched him - The accused initially refused a urine test but after con­sulting counsel provided a sample which tested positive for heroin - He was arrested and again informed of his rights - He thereafter admitted to swal­lowing pellets containing heroin - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the initial deten­tion could not be justified as a warrantless arrest for an indictable offence because the authorities only had a reason­able suspicion about the accused - See paragraphs 22 to 29.

Customs - Topic 2826

Report and entry inwards - Customs officers - Powers and duties - Arrest and detention - An accused who arrived on an international flight was detained and strip searched by customs authorities (Customs Act, s. 98) - He refused to provide a urine sample - He was then told he would be detained until he consented or had a bowel movement - He consulted counsel and provided a urine sample which tested positive for heroin - He was arrested - Shortly thereafter he admitted to swallow­ing pellets containing heroin and four hours later passed the pellets - He was then put into RCMP custody - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the arrest was unlawful where the grounds for the arrest were obtained during an unlaw­ful detention and unlawful seizure of the urine sample - Since the arrest was un­lawful, the search and seizure of the nar­cotics could not be justified on that basis - See paragraphs 98 to 101.

Customs - Topic 2826

Report and entry inwards - Customs officers - Powers and duties - Arrest and detention - An accused who arrived on an interna­tional flight was detained and strip searched by customs authorities (Customs Act, s. 98) - He was asked to provide a urine sample, but ref­used - He was then told he would be detained until he con­sented or had a bowel movement - He consulted counsel and provided a urine sample which tested positive for heroin - He was arrested - Shortly thereafter he admitted to swallow­ing pellets containing heroin and four hours later passed the pellets - He was then put into RCMP custody - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the detention of the accused could not be justified at common law - See paragraphs 78 to 87.

Customs - Topic 2826

Report and entry inwards - Customs officers - Powers and duties - Arrest and detention - Section 98 of the Customs Act allowed a customs officer to conduct a search if the officer suspected that a trav­eller had contraband "secreted on or about his person" - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that while s. 98 does not itself per­mit a detention, Parliament has given the officers the powers necessary to carry out the search authorized by the section (Inter­pretation Act, s. 31(2)) (i.e., the authority for a detention necessary to carry out the strip search authorized by s. 98) - See paragraphs 30 to 35.

Customs - Topic 2826

Report and entry inwards - Customs officers - Powers and duties - Arrest and detention - Section 98 of the Customs Act allowed a customs officer to, within a reasonable time after a traveller's arrival in Canada, conduct a search if the officer suspected that a traveller had contraband "secreted on or about his person" - The Ontario Court of Appeal interpreted s. 98 -The court held that s. 98 did not author­ize a search or seizure more intrusive than a strip search - Once a strip search was conducted, customs officers exhausted their search powers under s. 98 and hence their power of detention under s. 31(2) of the Interpretation Act - Further, s. 98 was not authority for customs officers to detain a traveller while nature takes its course and for seizing of drugs many hours later when they are secreted - See paragraphs 39 to 50.

Customs - Topic 2826

Report and entry inwards - Customs officers - Powers and duties - Arrest and detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Customs - Topic 2827

Report and entry inwards - Customs officers - Powers and duties - Medical treatment for detainees - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1435 ].

Customs - Topic 2828

Report and entry inwards - Customs officers - Powers and duties - Urine testing - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Customs - Topic 3023

Search and seizure - Search - Strip search -[See third Civil Rights - Topic 1217 and fourth and fifth Customs - Topic 2826 ].

Customs - Topic 3023

Search and seizure - Search - Strip search -An accused who arrived on an interna­tional flight was detained and strip searched by customs authorities (Customs Act, s. 98) - Thereafter he was detained until he provided a urine sample, admitted to having swallowed pellets containing heroin and passed the pellets - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the detention of the accused could not be justified as a warrantless arrest for an indictable offence, nor could it be justified under s. 98 of the Customs Act or as a detention at common law - See paragraphs 22 to 87.

Customs - Topic 3025

Search and seizure - Search - Warrantless searches - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Customs - Topic 3082

Search and seizure - Seizure - Warrantless seizure - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1217 and Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. [paras. 17, 51, 200].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.) (1997), 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 21, 212].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Feeney (M.) (1997), 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.) (1997), 207 N.R. 215; 152 Sask.R. 1; 140 W.A.C. 1; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Jacques (J.R.) and Mitchell (M.M.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 312; 202 N.R. 49; 180 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 458 A.P.R. 161; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 32, 146].

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, refd to. [paras. 33, 131, 179, footnote 12].

R. v. Oluwa (J.) (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 284; 123 W.A.C. 284; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 34, 146].

R. v. Colet, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 2; 35 N.R. 227; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 105; 119 D.L.R.(3d) 521, refd to. [para. 35].

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. 49, refd to. [para. 35].

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; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [paras. 37, 133].

Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 88 C.L.L.C. 14,011, refd to. [para. 40].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81; 6 R.F.L.(4th) 162; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 405, refd to. [para. 40].

Da­vidson v. Slaight Communi­cations Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Bryson, [1991] B.C.J. No. 3926 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 2].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [paras. 43, 134, 178].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 45].

Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 210; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 50, 219].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Conway v. Canada.

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985), 105 S.Ct. 3304; 473 U.S. 523 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 54, 199, 224, footnote 31].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278, refd to. [paras. 60, 233].

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 460, refd to. [paras. 61, 233].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1; 35 C.R.(4th) 201; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Marin, [1994] O.J. 1280 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 77, 220].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Koszulup (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Grant, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 139; 130 N.R. 250; 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 292 A.P.R. 181; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 268; 7 C.R.(4th) 388, refd to. [para. 81, foot­note 6].

R. v. Waterfield, [1964] 1 Q.B. 164 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

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. 83].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 37, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 8 O.A.C. 31; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Cayer et al. (1988), 15 O.A.C. 239; 66 C.R.(3d) 30 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173; 24 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 98].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 13 C.R.R. 287; 12 Admin. L.R. 16, refd to. [para. 104].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.­R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137, refd to. [para. 105].

Collin v. Lussier, [1983] 1 F.C. 218 (T.D.), revsd. [1985] 1 F.C. 124 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

East v. City of Chicago (1989), 719 F. Supp. 683 (N.D. Ill.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 7].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 15; 24 C.R.(4th) 281, refd to. [paras. 108, 253, footnote 39].

R. v. Jones, [1992] B.C.J. No. 231 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 16 C.R.(4th) 273, refd to. [paras. 110, 192].

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, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 67 C.R.(3d) 224; 37 C.R.R. 252, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 450; 38 C.R.(4th) 330; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 121].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Tapaquon, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 535; 116 Sask.R. 81; 59 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. D.A.Z., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1025; 140 N.R. 327; 131 A.R. 1; 25 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 16 C.R.(4th) 133; 5 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. Cahill (M.S.) (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 247; 23 A.P.R. 23; 13 C.R.(4th) 327 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 146].

Victoria (City) v. Bishop of Vancouver Island, [1921] A.C. 384 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 149].

Adler v. George, [1964] 2 Q.B. 7, refd to. [para. 153].

Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agri­cul­ture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 218; 3 Admin. L.R.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 156].

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, refd to. [paras. 157, 217, footnote 34].

Warriner v. Kingston Penitentiary Dis­ci­plinary Tribunal, [1991] 2 F.C. 88; 39 F.T.R. 285 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 158].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 530; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 568, refd to. [paras. 182, 217, footnotes 26, 34].

United States v. Villa Monte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, refd to. [para. 182, foot­note 27].

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. 182, footnote 28].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.) (1997), 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 182, footnote 28].

United States v. Ramsey (1977), 431 U.S. 606; 52 L.Ed.(2d) 617, refd to. [para. 182].

Dehghani v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 150 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346; 23 C.R.(4th) 189; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 632; 17 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 188].

Ahani v. Canada, [1995] 3 F.C. 669; 201 N.R. 233 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 188, footnote 29].

R. v. Keegs­tra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Williams (1992), 76 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Musurichan (1990), 107 A.R. 102; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Jordan (1984), 11 C.C.C.(3d) 565 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 198].

United States v. Guadalupe-Garza (1970), 421 F.2d 876 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 202, footnote 33].

R. v. Godoy (V.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 104; 33 O.R.(3d) 445 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 213].

R. v. Golub (D.J.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 176; 34 O.R.(3d) 743 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 213].

Fieldhouse v. Kent Institution (1995), 98 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 219].

United States v. Esieke (1991), 940 F.2d 29 (U.S.C.A., 2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 225].

R. v. Wise (1992), 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 234].

R. v. Hundal (S.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867; 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 19 C.R.(4th) 169; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 169; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 19, refd to. [para. 234].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 245].

R. v. Wilson (J.W.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 245].

R. v. Amos and Walker (1992), 55 O.A.C. 169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 247].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 250].

Fleming v. Reid (Litigation Guardian) (1991), 28 A.C.W.S.(3d) 238 (Ont. C.A.). refd to. [para. 253].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 253].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [paras. 1, 249]; sect. 8 [paras. 1, 177]; sect. 9 [para. 1]; sect. 10(c) [para. 216]; sect. 24(2) [para. 1].

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, sect. 49, sect. 50 [para. 71]; sect. 51 [paras. 49, 71, 218]; sect. 54, sect. 55 [paras. 71, 219].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 2 [para. 22]; sect. 254(2) [para. 72]; sect. 487.01(1), sect. 487.01(2) [para. 47]; sect. 487.05, sect. 487.07 [para. 46, footnote 3]; sect. 495 [paras. 22, 127, footnote 10]; sect. 503 [para. 108]; sect. 503(1)(a) [para. 80].

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd. Supp.), c. 1, sect. 2 [para. 148, footnote 18]; sect. 98 [paras. 30, 141]; sect. 99(1) [para. 184]; sect. 153(c) [para. 74].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 31(2) [paras. 34, 157].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C 1985, c. N-1, sect. 5(1) [para. 1].

United States Constitution, Fourth Amend­ment [paras. 182, 224, footnote 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990), p. 1089 [para. 150, footnote 19].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, Sept. 11, 1985, p. 6505 [para. 143, foot­note 15].

Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 6 [para. 149].

Ewaschuk, E.G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed.), pp. 31 to 79 [para. 253, footnote 39].

Fontana, Law of Search and Seizure in Canada (4th Ed. 1997), p. 4 [para. 194].

Gregory, Alison Mylander, Smugglers Who Swallow: The Constitutional Issues Posed by Drug Swallowers and their Treatment (1994), 56 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 323, p. 324 [para. 162, footnote 21].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Com­mons Debates.

Hogg, P.W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), pp. 45 [para. 157]; 46, 47 [para. 88].

LaFave, Search and Seizure, A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (4th Ed. 1996), pp. 529-546 [para. 54, footnote 4].

New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993), vol. 2, pp. 7, 1995 [para. 69].

Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed.), vol. 1, pp. 37, 38 [para. 150].

Prabhu, The 1997 Annotated Customs Act (1988), p. xxv [para. 143, footnote 14].

Quigley and Covin, Developments in Crim­inal Law and Procedure: The 1989-90 Term (1991), S.C.L.R.(2d) 255, p. 274 [para. 134, footnote 13].

Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1993), pp. 6 [para. 69]; 319 [para. 71].

Search and Seizure-Maintaining the Stand­ard of Reasonableness, United States v. Sanders, 663 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1981) (1983), 7.1 Suffolk Transnational L.J. 191, pp. 196, 197, 198 [para. 199, foot­note 31].

Counsel:

Russell S. Silverstein, for the appellant;

James W. Leising, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 9, 1996, before Morden, A.C.J.O., Weiler and Rosenberg, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was released on November 28, 1997, including the following opinions:

Rosenberg, J.A. (Morden, A.C.J.O, con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 125;

Weiler, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 126 to 258.