R. v. Porter (K.), 2014 ABQB 359

• Judge: Shelley, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 28, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABQB 359;(2014), 590 A.R. 209 (QB)

R. v. Porter (K.) (2014), 590 A.R. 209 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. JN.054

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown/respondent) v. Kieran Porter (accused/applicant)

(121474704Q1; 2014 ABQB 359)

Indexed As: R. v. Porter (K.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Shelley, J.

June 12, 2014.

Summary:

Police learned that the accused was the driver of the vehicle that was involved in a fatal hit and run based on a statement that he was compelled to make under the Traffic Safety Act (TSA). Police arrested the accused and attempted to interview him, but the accused refused to answer any questions. Based largely on information provided in the TSA statement, police obtained a warrant to search and seize the accused's vehicle, and a production order to seize statements that the accused had given to his insurance company. The accused was charged with careless driving (TSA, s. 115(2)(b)) and failing to stop at an accident (Criminal Code, s. 252(1)(a)). He applied for exclusion of the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the grounds that his ss. 7 and 8 rights were violated.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and excluded the evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 1604

Property - Search warrants - Validity of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3160

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to remain silent and protection against self-incrimination (Charter, s. 7) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4328

Protection against self-incrimination - Self-incriminating statements - Statements made under statutory compulsion - Police learned that Porter was the driver of the vehicle that was involved in a fatal hit and run based on a statement that he was required to make under the Traffic Safety Act (TSA) - Police arrested Porter and attempted to interview him, but he refused to answer any questions - Police used the information they obtained in relation to the TSA statement as the basis for an Information to Obtain (ITO) a warrant to search and seize Porter's vehicle, and an ITO for a production order to seize statements that Porter had given to his insurance company - Porter was charged with careless driving (TSA, s. 115(2)(b)) and failing to stop at an accident (Criminal Code, s. 252(1)(a)) - He applied for exclusion of the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the grounds that his ss. 7 and 8 rights were violated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and excluded the evidence - The TSA statements were statutorily compelled and could not be used in an ITO - When this information was excised from the ITOs, there was no basis upon which the warrant or production order could have been issued - The s. 8 breach was serious and the state conduct was problematic - The officers knew that the TSA statement was inadmissible at trial - They intentionally included the TSA information in the ITO without identifying it as such - The s. 8 breach eroded the s. 7 protection against self-incrimination.

Civil Rights - Topic 4350

Protection against self-incrimination - Self-incriminating documents - Production of - Denial of right - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 50

General principles - Protection against self-incrimination - General principles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3092

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - Civil rights limitations - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3097

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - Contents of information or application for issue of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3183

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information - Sufficiency of form and content - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3184

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Falsehood - Misleading statements or omissions in sworn information - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5339

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - Statements made under statutory compulsion - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4328 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Jones (K.C.) (2006), 214 O.A.C. 225; 211 C.C.C.(3d) 4 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Fitzpatrick (B.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154; 188 N.R. 248; 65 B.C.A.C. 1; 106 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Charlie - see R. v. Rice.

R. v. Rice (E.A.) (2009), 279 B.C.A.C. 76; 473 W.A.C. 76; 2009 BCCA 569, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Choy (L.) (2011), 508 A.R. 279; 2011 ABQB 348, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Jarvis (W.J.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757; 295 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 1; 284 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Ouaida (1996), 30 W.C.B.(2d) 250 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Harris (R.) (1997), 50 O.T.C. 241; 48 C.R.R.(2d) 253 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Orbanski (C.); R. v. Elias (D.J.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 3; 335 N.R. 342; 195 Man.R.(2d) 161; 351 W.A.C. 161; 2005 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Soules (S.) (2011), 278 O.A.C. 247; 105 O.R.(3d) 561; 2011 ONCA 429, leave to appeal denied (2011), 431 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Tessling (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168; 2004 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Syed, [2000] O.J. No. 3535 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Fliss (P.W.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 535; 283 N.R. 120; 163 B.C.A.C. 1; 267 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 16, dist. [para. 62].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 69].

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. 69].

R. v. Zwicker (S.L.) (2003), 49 M.V.R.(4th) 69; 2003 NSCA 140, leave to appeal denied (2004), 335 N.R. 194 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 111, appld. [para. 75].

R. v. Powers (M.J.) (2006), 231 B.C.A.C. 155; 381 W.A.C. 155; 213 C.C.C.(3d) 351; 2006 BCCA 454, leave to appeal denied (2007), 369 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. DaCosta (P.), [2001] O.T.C. 474; 156 C.C.C.(3d) 520 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Velandia (C.Y.) (2012), 554 A.R. 104; 2012 ABPC 347, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Lynch (K.A.) (2008), 453 A.R. 186; 2008 ABQB 506, refd to. [para. 92].

Auer v. Lionstone Holdings Inc. et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 84; 343 W.A.C. 84; 2005 ABCA 78, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Hazel (S.S.) (2009), 249 O.A.C. 259; 2009 ONCA 389, dist. [para. 100].

R. v. Mirzakhalili (A.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. A40; 77 W.C.B.(2d) 388 (Sup. Ct.), dist. [para. 100].

R. v. Brucker (B.E.) (2004), 362 A.R. 120; 2004 ABPC 181, dist. [para. 100].

R. v. Harricharan (R.) (1995), 82 O.A.C. 221; 23 O.R.(3d) 233 (C.A.), dist. [para. 100].

R. v. Lupien (R.) (1995), 68 Q.A.C. 253 (C.A.), dist. [para. 100].

R. v. Russell (L.G.) (1994), 132 Sask.R. 24 (Q.B.), affd. (1996), 141 Sask.R. 152; 114 W.A.C. 152 (C.A.), dist. [para. 100].

R. v. Pugh (D.R.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 831; 2005 ABQB 764, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Gwozdecki (S.A.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 70; 2013 ABQB 65, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Parol, 2011 ONCJ 292, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Treliving, 2012 ONCJ 75, refd to. [para. 104].

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. [para. 117].

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. 119].

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. 120].

R. v. Scharf (M.L.) (2013), 429 Sask.R. 185; 2013 SKQB 327, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Murray (D.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 2537; 2011 ONSC 2537, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 128].

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. 128].

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. 130].

Counsel:

Julie Snowdon and Megan Rosborough-Currie, for the Crown;

Michael Danyluik, for the accused.

This voir dire was heard between April 22 and 29, and on May 28, 2014, before Shelley, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for decision on June 12, 2014.