R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) et al., 2008 ABQB 721

• Judge: Graesser, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 13, 2008
• Citations: 2008 ABQB 721;(2008), 462 A.R. 240 (QB)

R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) (2008), 462 A.R. 240 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. DE.084

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. Thao Van Nguyen, Bau Van Ta and Karina Kam-Yim Miao (applicants/accused)

(070946645Q1; 2008 ABQB 721)

Indexed As: R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Graesser, J.

November 20, 2008.

Summary:

The accused were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and proceeds of crime. The accused brought applications alleging that their ss. 8, 9, 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights had been violated and that search warrants obtained should be quashed and evidence seized should be excluded under s. 24(2). A voir dire was held.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues.

Civil Rights - Topic 1262

Security of the person - Lawful arrest - What constitutes - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed s. 8 of the Charter and the expectation of privacy and stated the following factors: "1. A claim for relief under s. 24(2) can only be made by the person whose Charter rights have been infringed. ...; 2. Section 8 is a personal right (like all Charter rights). It protects people, not places. ...; 3. The right to challenge the legality of a search depends upon the accused establishing that his personal rights to privacy have been violated. ...; 4. Two distinct inquiries must generally be made in relation to s. 8: has the accused a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if he has such an expectation, was the search by the police conducted reasonably? ...; 5. A reasonable expectation of privacy is to be determined on the basis of the totality of the circumstances. ...; 6. The factors to consider include: (i) presence at the time of the search; (ii) possession or control of the property or place searched; (iii) ownership of the property or place; (iv) historical use of the property; (v) the ability to regulate access, including the right to admit or exclude others from the place; (vi) the existence of a subjective expectation of privacy; and (vii) the objective reasonableness of the expectation." - See paragraph 122.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and proceeds of crime - The accused brought applications alleging that the police's surveillance of the condominium complex was an unlawful search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Nguyen had no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the condominium unit - There was no evidence that Nguyen used the unit as his residence, that he had any control over the comings and goings from the unit, that he had any ownership interest in the complex and Nguyen had no apparent ability to restrict access to the common property - As a result, Nguyen could not complain about the surveillance from within the condominium complex - See paragraphs 128 to 150.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - The accused brought applications alleging that the police's surveillance of the condominium complex was an unlawful search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Miao and Ta had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the condominium complex, so as to create standing to argue a Charter violation in relation to surveillance of the condominium unit - There was sufficient evidence to establish that Miao and Ta had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the unit itself - However, Miao and Ta argued that their reasonable expectation of privacy extended to the common property - Having regard to the size of the condominium complex, the number of residents, and the ease of access to the common property by residents and their guests, Miao or Ta did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the common property, despite the security system in place - The surveillance in the condominium complex did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy of Miao and Ta - It followed that the information obtained through that surveillance was not obtained in a manner that infringed their s. 8 rights and therefore there was no basis to exclude any of that information - See paragraphs 151 to 168.

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - The accused challenged the validity of the search warrants, asserting that the information in the Information to Obtain (ITO) was inaccurate, misleading, incomplete and insufficient to justify the issuance of the search warrant - They particularized those allegations as involving: "(a) lack of detail, (b) conclusory statements, (c) no information as to sources, (d) no timelines in respect of the information provided, and (e) no association with [the condominium] Unit." - The allegations of lack of detail were that the ITO contained only the "suspicious" parts of the surveillance against Nguyen, and not innocuous activities such as shopping, having coffee and picking up children from school - As well, the accused complained that the ITO should have contained the results of the charges against Nguyen (that he had not been convicted) and that the informal complaint by the brother occurred several years earlier - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that while there was no deliberate attempt to mislead or deceive the justice of the peace, there was incorrect or misleading information put forward in the ITO - The court excised improper information, corrected any misstatements and misleading information and supplemented the information with facts which should have been disclosed in the first place - The information was then sufficient so that the justice of the peace could have issued the search warrant - The warrant was thus valid and the search of the condominium unit was reasonable and lawful - See paragraphs 305 to 363.

Civil Rights - Topic 1641

Property - Search and seizure - General - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - Nguyen asserted that the warrantless search of the cell phone box was unlawful and in violation of s. 8 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Nguyen - Further, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to search the cell phone box - As a result of their subjective beliefs, which were also objectively reasonable, the police were justified in searching the cell phone box - The lawfulness of the arrest or the search was not affected by the fact that the search was conducted before the arrest - The arrest and the search of the cell phone box were authorized by law and were conducted in a reasonable manner - The search was for the purpose of finding evidence of drugs and drug trafficking, which was why Nguyen was arrested - The search was essentially conducted at the same time as the arrest was made - See paragraphs 194 to 232.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - Nguyen asserted that the warrantless search of the car and the black satchel was unlawful and in violation of s. 8 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the initial search of the car and the black satchel were incidental to Nguyen's arrest, and were connected to the reasons for his arrest and did not violate s. 8 - See paragraphs 233 to 239.

Civil Rights - Topic 1653.2

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - General - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3142

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Arrest or detention - Right to be informed of reasons for (Charter, s. 10(a)) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3608 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - Nguyen asserted that the manner in which he was stopped was simply a ruse to stop and detain Nguyen for the purposes of the drug investigation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no breach of s. 9 of the Charter - The police had reasonable grounds to stop and detain Nguyen - The ruse was effected out of a legitimate concern that Nguyen might be in a position to compromise the investigation and not to cover over the fact that the officers did not have reasonable grounds to suspect he was in possession of drugs - The police had reasonable grounds to believe that Nguyen had been trafficking drugs, and they had reasonable grounds to suspect that he was in possession of drugs at the time of the stop - They had sufficient grounds to stop the vehicle for further investigation - See paragraphs 188 to 193.

Civil Rights - Topic 3608

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - Nguyen asserted that he was stopped and detained and was not told of the reason for the stop and detention or was given a false explanation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that although a slight delay in providing the reason for the stop might have been justified, Nguyen's s. 10(a) Charter rights were infringed - It was clear from the evidence that no reason or no sufficient reason was given to Nguyen when he was initially stopped and once the officers were satisfied regarding their potential concerns - Nguyen was questioned without being given any reason for his detention - Further, Nguyen was asked to consent to the search of the cell phone box before receiving the information required under s. 10(a) - See paragraphs 240 to 245.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - Nguyen asserted that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter had been breached - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it was clear that Nguyen was not allowed to exercise his right to counsel without delay upon his arrest - The court accepted that there were legitimate concerns about preservation of evidence and safety of officers for some time after the arrest - The evidence was to the effect that the search of the condominium unit commenced around 3:30 a.m. - The investigating officer returned to the station at 7:00 a.m - Some delay after that point was attributable to a line-up for the phone - In the circumstances of this case, a breach occurred from some point prior to 7:00 a.m., as it was not necessary for the investigating officer to make the trip back to the station prior to permitting Nguyen to access counsel - Nguyen's rights were violated at least three times, by at least three separate officers - Cst. Lewis failed to inform Nguyen of his rights when he was stopped - Sgt. Bruni-Bossio failed to inform Nguyen of his rights when he began to question Nguyen - After Nguyen had been arrested and Chartered, both Sgt. Bruni-Bossio and Cst. Tuttle failed to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to counsel - Instead of facilitating access to counsel, they made conscious decisions to keep Nguyen from contacting counsel - See paragraphs 246 to 258.

Civil Rights - Topic 4605.1

Right to counsel - General - Denial of - Effect on reasonableness of search - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - General - Requirement of arrest or detention and notice of reasons for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3608 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - The accused brought applications alleging that the police's surveillance of the condominium complex was an unlawful search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no violation of s. 8 - Had the court found a breach, it found that exclusion of evidence would not have been warranted - The evidence obtained during the surveillance was non-conscriptive and would not affect trial fairness - If any of the accused had an expectation of privacy in the common areas of the condominium complex, such an expectation was minimal and therefore any breach due to the surveillance could not be considered to be serious - The police were acting in good faith - Any breach could not be described as serious - Balancing what might at best be characterized as an inadvertent or technical breach of s. 8 against the serious charges involved in this case, exclusion on this basis of any of the evidence resulting from the surveillance or flowing therefrom would be more harmful to the administration of justice than would its admission - See paragraphs 169 to 187.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Nguyen's ss. 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for detention) and 10(b) (right to counsel) had been breached - The breaches were significant and were aggravated by the fact that Nguyen was asked if he had any contraband, alcohol or weapons in the car, and for permission to open the cell phone box - There was a temporal connection between the ss. 10(a) and 10(b) breaches and the finding and seizing of evidence - However, the evidence was not causally connected to these breaches, and any relationship was remote - The s. 10 breaches were serious - The length of the delay was not justified - However, no evidence was conscripted from Nguyen during that delay - Further, no conscriptive evidence resulted from any of these breaches, and none of the evidence sought to be entered at the trial could be characterized as being derivative from any of the breaches - On balance the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute by exclusion of the evidence - The offences were extremely serious, and exclusion would likely result in an acquittal - Despite the seriousness of the breaches, given the remoteness of the relationship between the breaches and the evidence, admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 259 to 269.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Nguyen's arrest was lawful and the initial search of the car and the black satchel were incidental to Nguyen's arrest, and were connected to the reasons for his arrest - There were no violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter - If the court was mistaken, and the arrest was unlawful, the court would have excluded the evidence seized - The evidence that resulted from the search of the cell phone box was non-conscriptive, so that trial fairness issues under s. 24(2) would not generally be engaged as a result of its admission on that basis - However, if the evidence resulting from the search of the cell phone box was necessary in order to further detain Nguyen, the cumulative breaches would be serious - See paragraphs 270 to 278.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - The accused challenged the validity of the search warrant - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the search warrant was valid - If the court was wrong, it considered the seriousness of the warrantless search of the condominium unit in violation of s. 8 of the Charter - None of the issues related to conscriptive evidence, so there was no trial fairness issue - The police acted in good faith - The problems with the Information to Obtain were not deliberate, wilful or flagrant, but were a combination of inadvertence and technical irregularities - The search was an obtrusive search of Miao and Ta's personal residence - They had a very high expectation of privacy - There were no reasonable and probable grounds to suspect them of having committed any offences, prior to the execution of the search warrant - Nguyen was the target of the investigation, not Miao and Ta - Accordingly, the admission into evidence against Miao and Ta of the items seized from the condominium unit would be more harmful to the administration of justice than would be the exclusion of the evidence - Accordingly, if the search warrant had been found invalid, the court would have excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 364 to 378.

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - [See second and third Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3046

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

Criminal Law - Topic 3112

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - General - Standing - Police obtained information linking Nguyen to drug trafficking - He was linked to a condominium unit (owned by Ta and Miao) where he allegedly stashed his drug supply - Police conducted surveillance of the condominium complex and unit - On October 12, 2006, Nguyen drove to a bar, where he parked and waited for 20 minutes - He then drove to another condominium complex where he entered a unit and emerged 30 minutes later, carrying a small bag and a box - The police stopped Nguyen - During this detention he was questioned about his activities, and about the contents of the box which was on the floorboards by the front seat of his car - The box was searched, without a warrant - Cocaine was discovered - Nguyen was arrested - He was cautioned and Chartered, but was not allowed to contact a lawyer - His vehicle was searched, without a warrant, and police found a black satchel behind the front seat - It was opened, and they found a significant quantity of cocaine, worth an estimated $30,000, and $6,000 in cash - The car was seized and searched at police headquarters, without a warrant - Immediately after Nguyen's arrest, police obtained a search warrant, and executed it at the condominium - The search disclosed several kilos of cocaine, more cash, some marijuana, four handguns and a silencer - Nguyen, Ta and Miao (the accused) were jointly charged with a number of offences relating to illegal drugs, weapons and the proceeds of crime - The court held that Nguyen's ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights had been breached - All the accused challenged the validity of the search warrants - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Miao and Ta had standing to attack the search warrant, but no standing to raise any breaches of Nguyen's Charter rights in their attack on the Information to Obtain and the validity of the search warrant - Nguyen had standing to challenge the search warrant and in doing so to rely on any breaches of his Charter rights - See paragraphs 279 to 304.

Narcotic Control - Topic 2043

Search and seizure - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information - Sufficiency of form and contents - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1604 ].

Police - Topic 3063

Powers - Arrest and detention - Without warrant - Reasonable and probable grounds - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Police - Topic 3185

Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Real Property - Topic 9001

Condominiums - Common property - General - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Cases Noticed:

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; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Acciavatti (M.J.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 137; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Adansi, 2008 ONCJ 144, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Arabi (M.) (2007), 428 A.R. 68; 2007 ABQB 303, refd to. [para. 114].

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. [paras. 114, 115].

R. v. Baxter (W.J.), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 055; 164 C.R.R.(2d) 41 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Blizzard (A.J.) et al. (2006), 304 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 788 A.P.R. 299; 2006 NBQB 155, refd to. [para. 114].

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, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Brown, 2003 BCPC 236, refd to. [para. 114].

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. 114].

R. v. Bulmer (D.L.) (2005), 269 Sask.R. 137; 357 W.A.C. 137; 2005 SKCA 90, refd to. [para. 114].

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, dist. [para. 114].

R. v. Calderon (2004), 188 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 114].

R. v. Cao (V.D.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. A34; 167 C.R.R.(2d) 120; 2008 BCSC 139, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Chang (A.) and Kullman (G.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 37; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Chanthavixay, 2007 ONCJ 365, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Chenier (J.R.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. B58; 2007 BCSC 263, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 1986 CarswellOnt 135 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Donaldson (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 294; 48 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Dreyer (M.T.) (2008), 252 B.C.A.C. 63; 422 W.A.C. 63; 2008 BCCA 89, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Duncan (W.S.) (2004), 187 Man.R.(2d) 212; 330 W.A.C. 212; 2004 MBCA 64, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Ebanks (N.), [2007] O.T.C. 1465 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321; 26 O.R.(3d) 736, consd. [para. 114].

R. v. Evanishen (M.J.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 70 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Evans (D.W.) (1994), 91 Man.R.(2d) 71 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Geroux (S.M.) (2008), 441 A.R. 274; 2008 ABPC 49, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Gregoire (R.P.) (2005), 382 A.R. 1; 2005 ABQB 340, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Guilbride (2003), 10 C.R.(6th) 243; 2003 BCPC 177, dist. [para. 114].

R. v. Hosie (G.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 281; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Huynh (Y.T.) (2008), 451 A.R. 175; 2008 ABQB 415, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Kanak (D.K.), [2003] A.R. Uned. 813; 2003 ABPC 113, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Kang-Brown (G.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456; 373 N.R. 67; 432 A.R. 1; 424 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 18, refd to. [paras. 114, 115].

R. v. Kelly (1985), 7 O.A.C. 46 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Kim (H.S.) et al. (2004), 368 A.R. 271; 2004 ABQB 584, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, consd. [para. 114].

R. v. LeBlanc (K.R.) (2007), 312 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 806 A.P.R. 321; 221 C.C.C.(3d) 427; 2007 NBCA 24, consd. [para. 114].

R. v. Mah (J.) et al. (2001), 294 A.R. 96; 2001 ABQB 394, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Maton (M.R.), [2005] B.C.T.C. 330; 2005 BCSC 330, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. McCarger (E.G.) (2007), 413 A.R. 329; 2007 ABQB 30, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. McCormack (R.D.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. F68; 2007 BCSC 1526, refd to. [para. 114].

R.v. McKennon, [2004] O.J. No. 5021 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Morin (C.L.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 396; 2005 ABQB 331, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Ombiga (1999), 45 M.V.R.(3d) 134; 1999 CarswellOnt 2337 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Park, [2007] O.J. No. 3921 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Peters (K.A.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 1560; 2006 BCSC 1560, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Rahmani-Shirazi (O.R.) (2008), 451 A.R. 145; 2008 ABQB 145, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Rutton (G.) (2006), 279 Sask.R. 201; 372 W.A.C. 201; 205 C.C.C.(3d) 504; 2006 SKCA 17, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Sekhon (2007), 49 C.R.(6th) 341; 2007 BCPC 224, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Shayesteh (S.) (1996), 94 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Simpson (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Sismey (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 281 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Spackman (K.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. D99; 234 C.C.C.(3d) 24 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Stephen (R.), [2003] O.T.C. 84 (Sup. Ct.), dist. [para. 114].

R. v. Tran (A.L.) et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 464; [2004] 3 W.W.R. 752; 2003 ABPC 140, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Vu (K.O.), [2004] O.T.C. 1196 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Vu, 2006 BCPC 77, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Williams (D.) (2003), 180 O.A.C. 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250, consd. [para. 114].

R. v. Wust (L.W.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 1858; 2006 BCSC 1858, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Youn (S.W.) (2005), 388 A.R. 339; 2005 ABPC 198, refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Youngberg, [2004] O.J. No. 4697 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 114].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 94, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, reving. [1983] 5 W.W.R. 43; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 40; 5 C.C.C.(3d) 141 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

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. 115].

R. v. Harrison (B.) (2008), 233 O.A.C. 211; 89 O.R.(3d) 161; 2008 ONCA 85, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Calder (S.M.) (2006), 401 A.R. 167; 391 W.A.C. 167; 2006 ABCA 307, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Carrier (A.J.) (1996), 181 A.R. 284; 116 W.A.C. 284; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

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. 115].

R. v. Caissey (L.M.) (2007), 422 A.R. 208; 415 W.A.C. 208; 2007 ABCA 380, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Cheung (Y.W.) (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 161; 157 W.A.C. 161; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 507 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. DeBot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 1986 CarswellOnt 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Eldib, 2005 CarswellOnt 4494 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 115].

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, refd to. [para. 115].

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, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Godoy (V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; 235 N.R. 134; 117 O.A.C. 127, refd to. [para. 115].

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, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Hyatt (S.A.) et al. (2003), 176 B.C.A.C. 216; 290 W.A.C. 216; 2003 BCCA 27, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Klassen, [1994] B.C.J. No. 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

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; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Michael, 2007 BCPC 217, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Montemurro (C.) et al., [2004] O.A.C. Uned. 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Morris (W.R.) (1998), 173 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 527 A.P.R. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Petrin (J.) (2007), 436 A.R. 117; 2007 ABQB 687, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Lising (R.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343; 341 N.R. 147; 217 B.C.A.C. 65; 358 W.A.C. 65; 2005 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Qureshi (I.A.) et al. (2007), 428 A.R. 203; 2007 ABPC 236, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Rajaratnam (M.) (2006), 397 A.R. 126; 384 W.A.C. 126; 214 C.C.C.(3d) 547; 2006 ABCA 333, refd to. [para. 115].

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. 115].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316; 75 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Strachan, [988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Tessling (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168; 2004 SCC 67, consd. [para. 115].

R. v. Thomsen (2005), 72 W.C.B.(2d) 349 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), affd. 2007 ONCA 878, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Vereczki (V.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. J06 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 115].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 116].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 116].

Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980), 448 U.S. 98 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. A.M., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 569; 373 N.R. 198; 236 O.A.C. 267; 2008 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 83; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 33 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Beune, 2005 BCPC 175, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Brar (G.) (2008), 222 Man.R.(2d) 243; 2008 MBQB 1, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Chambers (R.) et al. (2007), 442 A.R. 89; 84 Alta. L.R.(4th) 166; 2007 ABQB 712, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Chin (L.A.) (2003), 345 A.R. 157; 2003 ABPC 118, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Gobert (C.J.) (2007), 296 Sask.R. 248; 2007 SKPC 31, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Huynh (Y.T.) et al. (2008), 451 A.R. 201; 2008 ABQB 464, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. James, [2001] J.Q. No. 5232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Joyal (1995), 43 C.R.(4th) 317 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. K.C.F. (2004), 235 N.S.R.(2d) 3; 747 A.P.R. 3; 2004 NSPC 70, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Krall (A.J.) (2003), 341 A.R. 311; 2003 ABPC 171, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Laurin (R.R.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 50; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 519 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. LeBlanc (E.J.) et al. (2001), 297 A.R. 17; 2001 ABQB 721, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Makhmudov (R.) et al. (2007), 417 A.R. 228; 410 W.A.C. 228; 2007 ABCA 248, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Nguyen, [2004] O.J. No. 2698 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Parchment (O.C.) (2007), 243 B.C.A.C. 161; 401 W.A.C. 161; 74 W.C.B.(2d) 6; 2007 BCCA 326, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Patterson (D.J.) (2006), 221 B.C.A.C. 208; 364 W.A.C. 208; 2006 BCCA 24, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Piasentini, [2000] O.J. No. 3319 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 116].

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. 116].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Pugliese (1992), 52 O.A.C. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Sandhu (K.S.) (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 203; 47 W.A.C. 203; 22 C.R.(4th) 300; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 236; 1993 CarswellBC 501 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Schultz (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 9; 9 W.A.C. 9; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Simpson (C.), [2005] O.J. No. 5056 (Sup. Ct.), revd. (2007), 231 O.A.C. 19; 2007  ONCA 793, leave to appeal denied (2008), 387 N.R. 394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Sinclair (E.J.) (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 283; 340 W.A.C. 283; 37 W.C.B.(2d) 81; 2005 MBCA 41, leave to appeal denied (2005), 347 N.R. 200; 208 Man.R.(2d) 320; 383 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Tran (L.V.) (2008), 447 A.R. 282; 2008 ABQB 452, refd to. [para. 116].

Thompson 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; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 116].

Counsel:

Dennis Hrabcak, Agent for the Attorney General of Canada;

Brian E. Peterson, Q.C. (Pringle Peterson MacDonald & Bottos), for the accused, Thao Van Nguyen;

Andrew Fong (Mah & Company), for the accused, Bau Van Ta;

Rod Gregory (Davidson Gregory Danyluik), for the accused, Karina Kam-Yim Miao.

This case was heard between June 23 and July 13, 2008, by Graesser, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on November 20, 2008.