R. v. Patrick (R.S.), (2009) 387 N.R. 44 (SCC)

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

R. v. 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. 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.