R. v. Pastro, (1988) 66 Sask.R. 241 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: June 30, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241 (CA);1988 CanLII 214 (SK CA);42 CCC (3d) 485;[1988] SJ No 412 (QL);39 CRR 108;66 Sask R 241

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Doug Pastro (respondent)

(No. 2519)

Indexed As: R. v. Pastro

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.

June 30, 1988.

Summary:

A police officer obtained a search warrant under s. 10(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, searched the accused's dwelling-house and found evidence relating to drug trafficking. The accused was charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. The trial judge set aside the search warrant because the justice of the peace who issued the warrant lacked reasonable grounds for believing that there was a narcotic in the accused's dwelling-house. The trial judge found the search to be warrantless, illegal and unreasonable, and contrary to s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He excluded the evidence obtained during the search under s. 24(2) of the Charter and directed an acquittal. The Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Bayda, C.J.S., dissenting, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal. Bayda, C.J.S., would have allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - The police searched the accused's dwelling-house under a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace under the Narcotic Control Act - The warrant was later determined to be illegal because the information on which the warrant was based did not contain sufficient evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Vancise and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A., affirmed that the search was illegal and unreasonable within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 67-69, 87 - Bayda, C.J.S., agreed that the search was unreasonable and contrary to s. 8, but opined that the search was, however, authorized by law within the meaning of s. 8 - See paragraphs 1 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The police searched the accused's dwelling-house pursuant to a search warrant issued under the Narcotic Control Act and seized marijuana and drug paraphernalia - The warrant was subsequently held to be illegal because the information in support of the warrant contained insufficient evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed that the search and seizure was contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The court discussed generally the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and, Bayda, C.J.S., dissenting, affirmed that this was a case where the evidence obtained in violation of s. 8 should be excluded - See paragraphs 26 to 101.

Narcotic Control - Topic 2021

Search and seizure - Search warrants - General - The Narcotic Control Act, s. 10(2), permitted a justice of the peace to issue a search warrant to search a dwelling-house for narcotics if the justice is satisfied by information upon oath that there is reasonable grounds for believing that there is an illegal narcotic in the dwelling-house - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that because s. 10(2) of the Narcotic Control Act and s. 443 of the Criminal Code were couched in the same terms, the same standards should be applied to obtain a search warrant under either section - See paragraphs 59, 60.

Narcotic Control - Topic 2030

Search and seizure - Search warrants - Judicial review - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that the decision of a justice of the peace to grant a search warrant under s. 10(2) of the Narcotic Control Act is subject to limited review - See paragraph 61.

Narcotic Control - Topic 2043

Search and seizure - Setting aside search warrants, grounds - Information, sufficiency of form and contents - A police officer swore an information in support of a narcotics search warrant stating that he believed there were narcotics in the accused's dwelling-house because of information he received from an informant - A justice of the peace issued the search warrant - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed that the warrant was improperly issued, because the information did not contain sufficient evidence - The court stated that there was no evidence to substantiate the credibility, veracity or reliability, and no disclosure as to how the knowledge of the facts were acquired - See paragraphs 1 to 15, 51 to 66, 87.

Narcotic Control - Topic 2043

Search and seizure - Setting aside search warrants, grounds - Information, sufficiency of form and contents - [see Civil Rights - Topic 8368 above].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508, appld. [paras. 6, 16, 27-48, 71, 74, 81, 89-92].

R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301; 75 N.R. 149; 56 C.R.(3d) 220; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 726; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 110; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 611, consd. [paras. 6, 75, 92].

R. v. Sieben, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 295; 74 N.R. 271; 56 C.R.(3d) 225; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 722; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 574; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 427, consd. [paras. 6, 92].

R. v. Dombrowski (1985), 37 Sask.R. 259; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 164, consd. [paras. 6, 75].

R. v. Dyment (1986), 57 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 210; 170 A.P.R. 210; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 399, consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Heisler (1984), 57 A.R. 230; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 475, consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Cameron (1984), 16 C.C.C.(3d) 240, consd. [para. 6].

R. v. DeBot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 54 C.R.(3d) 120, consd. [paras. 12, 15, 62, 76].

Restaurant Le Clemenceau Inc. v. Drouin, J., et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 706; 77 N.R. 72; 8 Q.A.C. 170, consd. [paras. 13, 23].

R. v. Komadowski, [1986] 3 W.W.R. 657; 39 Man.R.(2d) 282; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 319 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 16, 19].

R. v. Zevallos (1987), 22 O.A.C. 76; 59 C.R.(3d) 153, consd. [paras. 16, 93].

R. v. Williams (1987), 2 Y.R. 299; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 319, consd. [paras. 16, 93].

MacIntyre v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 129; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 385, consd. [paras. 17, 58].

Can. Transport v. Alsbury (1952-53), 7 W.W.R.(N.S.) 49 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

Poje et al. v. A.G. B.C., [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 155, consd. [paras. 18, 19].

Volhoffer v. Volhoffer, [1925] 2 W.W.R. 304, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. McAvena (1987), 55 Sask.R. 161; 56 C.R.(3d) 303, refd to. [paras. 33, 41].

R. v. Charles (1987), 61 Sask.R. 166; 59 C.R.(3d) 94, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Turcotte (1987), 60 Sask.R. 289, consd. [paras. 44-47, 92].

R. v. Harris and Lighthouse Video Centres Limited (1987), 20 O.A.C. 26; 57 C.R.(3d) 356 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [paras. 45, 92].

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. 6464; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, consd. [paras. 23, 59, 68].

R. v. Church of Scientology and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 61].

Times Square Bookstore, Re (1985), 10 O.A.C. 105; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 503 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Print Three Inc. et al. (1985), 10 O.A.C. 220; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 392 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Kerwin v. R. (1982), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 264 (P.E.I.S.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Christianson (1986), 47 Sask.R. 143; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 391 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Baylis (1988), 66 Sask.R. 268, refd to. [paras. 73, 77, 79].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 40 Sask.R. 122; 59 N.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153, refd to. [paras. 75, 91].

R. v. Chromiak, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 471; 29 N.R. 441, refd to. [para. 75].

Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 24(2).

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 443 [para. 60].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 4(2) [para. 1]; sect. 10(2) [para. 7 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

de Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Ed. 1980), p. 106 [para. 19].

Counsel:

H.H. Dahlem, for the appellant;

J.H.C. Harradence, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on June 30, 1988, including the following opinions:

Bayda, C.J.S., dissenting - See paragraphs 1 to 48

Vancise, J.A. - See paragraphs 49 to 86;

Sherstobitoff, J.A. - See paragraphs 87 to 101.