R. v. Patrick (R.S.), (2009) 454 A.R. 1 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateOctober 10, 2008
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2009), 454 A.R. 1 (SCC);2009 SCC 17;JE 2009-665;190 CRR (2d) 1;[2009] 1 SCR 579;EYB 2009-157141;4 Alta LR (5th) 1;[2009] 5 WWR 387;242 CCC (3d) 158;[2009] SCJ No 17 (QL);64 CR (6th) 1;387 NR 44;454 AR 1;AZ-50549497;304 DLR (4th) 260

R. v. Patrick (R.S.) (2009), 454 A.R. 1 (SCC);

      455 W.A.C. 1

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: [2009] A.R. TBEd. AP.083

Russell Stephen Patrick (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) - and - Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Alberta, Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario)

(intervenors)

(32354; 2009 SCC 17; 2009 CSC 17)

Indexed As: R. v. Patrick (R.S.)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

April 9, 2009.

Summary:

The accused was charged with production of ecstasy, possession of ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in ecstasy. The police obtained a search warrant on the basis of, inter alia, informant information and evidence seized as a result of warrantless searches of the accused's garbage. The police executed the search and discovered a clandestine lab. The accused asserted that his ss. 8 and 10(b) Charter rights were violated and that all the evidence seized as a result of the searches should be excluded.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 388 A.R. 202, rejected the accused's argument. There were no Charter breaches. The court found the accused guilty. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Conrad, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 417 A.R. 276; 410 W.A.C. 276, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - The accused was charged with drug related offences - The accused asserted that his s. 8 Charter right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was breached when police officers searched his garbage and seized evidence - The items seized by police included, inter alia, torn-up papers containing chemical recipes and instructions, gloves, used duct tape, paper towel sheets, packaging for rubber gloves, a receipt for muriatic acid and an empty clear plastic bag with residue inside - Some of the items bore a detectable odour of sassafras oil and some were found to be contaminated with ecstasy - The garbage can and bags were located at an indentation in a fence that ran along the property line - There were no barriers or lids and the garbage could be seen and accessed from the adjacent alley - The police simply crossed the property line with their hands to access the garbage - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that there was no breach of s. 8 - While the accused had an expectation of privacy in the garbage, the accused gave up that right when he abandoned the garbage by placing it at the indentation in the fence specifically for the purpose of garbage collection and disposal - When garbage was placed on the lot line for collection, the householder had sufficiently abandoned his interest and control to eliminate any objectively reasonable privacy interest - The police had no greater access than the public, but their access was no less - The accused had done everything required to rid himself of the contents, including whatever private information was embedded therein - This conduct was inconsistent with the continued assertion of a constitutionally protected privacy interest - The taking by the police did not constitute a search and seizure within the scope of s. 8, and the evidence (as well as the fruits of the search warrant obtained in reliance on such evidence) was properly admissible - See paragraphs 1 to 75.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

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

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Tessling (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168; 2004 SCC 67, consd. [paras. 6, 79].

R. v. Monney (I.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652; 237 N.R. 157; 119 O.A.C. 272, refd to. [paras. 14, 90].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 14].

Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, refd to. [para. 14].

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, refd to. [para. 15].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3; 180 N.R. 241; 60 B.C.A.C. 1; 99 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 17, 81].

R. v. M.R.M., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393; 233 N.R. 1; 171 N.S.R.(2d) 125; 519 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [para. 18].

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. 18].

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. [paras. 20, 82].

R. v. Joyce (R.C.) and Kennedy (T.D.), [1992] O.J. No. 1163 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1996), 95 O.A.C. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Papadopoulos, [2006] O.J. No. 5407 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Paul (2004), 117 C.R.R.(2d) 319 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Briere, [2004] O.J. No. 5611 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Marini, [2005] O.J. No. 6197 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Rodney, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 687; 112 N.R. 167, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Sherratt (1989), 58 Man.R.(2d) 145; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 237 (C.A.), affd. [1991] 1 S.C.R. 509; 122 N.R. 241; 73 Man.R.(2d) 161; 3 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Kinkead (A.), [1999] O.J. No. 1458 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2003), 176 O.A.C. 271; 67 O.R.(3d) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Love (R.J.) (1995), 174 A.R. 360; 102 W.A.C. 360; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 393 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Leaney and Rawlinson, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 393; 99 N.R. 345; 99 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 21].

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. [paras. 22, 78].

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. 23].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227; 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 2002 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Kang-Brown (G.) (2006), 391 A.R. 218; 377 W.A.C. 218; 210 C.C.C.(3d) 317; 60 Alta. L.R.(4th) 223; 2006 ABCA 199, revd. [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456; 373 N.R. 67; 432 A.R. 1; 424 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 38].

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. 38].

Lacroix v. R., [1954] Ex. C.R. 69, refd to. [para. 44].

Dahlberg v. Naydiuk (1969), 10 D.L.R.(3d) 319 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Lewvest Ltd. v. Scotia Towers Ltd. et al. (1981), 126 D.L.R.(3d) 239 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Anchor Brewhouse Developments Ltd. v. Berkeley House (Docklands) Developments Ltd., [1987] 2 E.G.L.R. 173 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 44].

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. 44].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 44, 79].

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. 44].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 44].

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. 44].

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, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Krist (J.) (1995), 62 B.C.A.C. 133; 103 W.A.C. 133; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para 56].

R. v. Taylor, [1984] B.C.J. No. 176 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Tam (R.K.N.), [1993] B.C.T.C. Uned. 398 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Allard, 2006 QCCQ 3080, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Barrelet, 2008 QCCS 3765, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Andrews, [2005] J.Q. No. 8595 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 60].

California v. Greenwood (1988), 486 U.S. 35 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 61, 76].

People v. Krivda (1971), 486 P.2d 1262 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 61].

State v. Morris (1996), 680 A.2d 90 (Vt.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322, refd to. [para. 70].

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

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 90].

Litchfield v. State (2005), 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind.), refd to. [para. 90].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ziff, Bruce H., Principles of Property Law (2nd Ed. 1996), pp. 82, 83 [para. 44].

Counsel:

Jennifer Ruttan and Michael Bates, for the appellant;

Ronald C. Reimer, Paul Riley and Monique Dion, for the respondent;

Michal Fairburn, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Mary T. Ainslie, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Goran Tomljanovic, Q.C., for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Alberta;

Jonathan C. Lisus and Alexi N. Wood, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Constance Baran-Gerez, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario).

Solicitors of Record:

Ruttan Bates, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;

Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of

Alberta;

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Constance Baran-Gerez, Kingston, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario).

This appeal was heard on October 10, 2008, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on April 9, 2009, and included the following opinions:

Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 75;

Abella, J., concurring - see paragraphs 76 to 92.

To continue reading

Request your trial
272 practice notes
  • X (Re),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 27 Septiembre 2017
    ...on another ground); R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, (1993), 145 A.R. 104 (also distinguished on another ground); R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579; Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, (1984), 55 A.R. 291; R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 220 (also di......
  • R. v. Schmidt (F.L.) et al., (2010) 496 A.R. 129 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 20 Mayo 2010
    ...23, and R. v. Duarate , [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30, 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1. The matter was recently discussed by Abella, J., in R. v. Patrick , 2009 SCC 17 at paras. 78-79: 'The protection of privacy is a central feature of the Canadian constitutional system. In R. v. Dyment , [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417, La Fore......
  • R. v. Patrick (R.S.), (2009) 387 N.R. 44 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • 10 Octubre 2008
    ...Patrick (R.S.) (2009), 387 N.R. 44 (SCC) 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: [2009] N.R. TBEd. AP.008 Russell Stephen Patrick (appellant) v.......
  • R. v. Gomboc (D.J.), (2010) 408 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • 24 Noviembre 2010
    ...(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. [para. 18]. R. v. Patrick (R.S.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579; 387 N.R. 44 ; 454 A.R. 1 ; 455 W.A.C. 1 ; 2009 SCC 17 , refd to. [para. R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 ; 74 N.R. 276 , refd to. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
206 cases
  • X (Re),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 27 Septiembre 2017
    ...on another ground); R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, (1993), 145 A.R. 104 (also distinguished on another ground); R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579; Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, (1984), 55 A.R. 291; R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 220 (also di......
  • R. v. Gomboc, [2010] 3 SCR 211
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 24 Noviembre 2010
    ...S.C.R. 128 ; R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67 , [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432 ; R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456 ; R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579 ; R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 ; R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20 ; R. v. Johnston, [2002] A.J. No. 843 (QL)......
  • R. v. Schmidt (F.L.) et al., (2010) 496 A.R. 129 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 20 Mayo 2010
    ...23, and R. v. Duarate , [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30, 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1. The matter was recently discussed by Abella, J., in R. v. Patrick , 2009 SCC 17 at paras. 78-79: 'The protection of privacy is a central feature of the Canadian constitutional system. In R. v. Dyment , [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417, La Fore......
  • R. v. Cole, [2012] 3 SCR 34
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 19 Octubre 2012
    ...to: R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; R. v. Evans, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; R. v. Borden, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579; R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 851; Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 27 ' May 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 12 Mayo 2020
    ...2013 SCC 50, R. v. Wong, 2017 BCSC 306, R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19, R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, R. v. Flintroy, 2019 BCSC 213 R. v. G., 2020 ONCA ......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (APRIL 27 – MAY 1)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • 4 Mayo 2020
    ...2013 SCC 50, R. v. Wong, 2017 BCSC 306, R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19, R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, R. v. Flintroy, 2019 BCSC 213 R. v. G., 2020 ONCA ......
  • Defence & Indemnity - April 2016: IV. PRACTICE ISSUES B.
    • Canada
    • JD Supra Canada
    • 24 Mayo 2016
    ...privacy, territorial privacy and informational privacy: Tessling [R. v. Tessliing, 2004 SCC 67] at para. 20; Patrick [R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17] at para. 32; and Spencer [R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43] at para. 35. These three broad categories of privacy interests are “not strict or mutually ......
  • No Privacy In Trash, Supreme Court Holds
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 15 Abril 2009
    ...garbage - and the private information it contains - may be vulnerable to police and public scrutiny R. v. Patrick Supreme Court of Canada, 2009 SCC 17 (April This Supreme Court of Canada ruling, which arose in the context of a criminal drug prosecution, underscores the importance of careful......
41 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Detention and Arrest. Second Edition
    • 22 Junio 2017
    ...56, 1998 CanLII 18014 (Nfld CA) ..............................................................326, 347 R v Patrick, 2007 ABCA 308, aff’d 2009 SCC 17 ...........................................26, 40 R v Patterson, 2006 BCCA 24 ......................................................................
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Anatomy of Criminal Procedure. A Visual Guide to the Law Post-trial matters Special Post-conviction Procedures
    • 15 Junio 2019
    ...R v Patko, 2005 BCCA 183 ................................................................................ 164 R v Patrick, 2009 SCC 17 .................................................................................... 28 R v Patrick, 2017 BCCA 57 ................................................
  • Rights in the Criminal Process
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sixth Edition
    • 22 Junio 2021
    ...infringe a reasonable expectation of privacy because the activities producing the heat are not revealed. 68 At the same 63 R v Patrick , [2009] 1 SCR 579 [ Patrick ]. 64 R v Dersch , [1993] 3 SCR 768, 85 CCC (3d) 1. 65 R v Dyment , [1988] 2 SCR 417, 45 CCC (3d) 244; R v Pohoretsky , [1987] ......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sixth Edition
    • 22 Junio 2017
    ...DLR (4th) 385, 2000 CanLII 5762 (CA) ............................................................................... 276 R v Patrick, [2009] 1 SCR 579, 2009 SCC 17 ..............................................312, 316 R v Plant, [1993] 3 SCR 281, 84 CCC (3d) 203 .................................
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT