R. v. Ramsay, (1986) 70 N.B.R.(2d) 221 (PC)

• Judge: Harper, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: March 21, 1986
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1986), 70 N.B.R.(2d) 221 (PC)

R. v. Ramsay (1986), 70 N.B.R.(2d) 221 (PC);

    70 R.N.-B.(2e) 221; 179 A.P.R. 221

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

R. v. Ramsay

Indexed As: R. v. Ramsay

Répertorié: R. v. Ramsay

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Criminal Division

Harper, P.C.J.

March 21, 1986.

Summary:

Résumé:

Police officers acted on the authority of a warrant which they believed authorized them to search the accused's house between noon and 4 p.m. The warrant authorized them to search between 4 p.m. and midnight. Substances were found. At trial there was a motion that the evidence be excluded because it was obtained as a result of a violation of the accused's rights under s. 8 of the Charter.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, dismissed the motion. The court held that the administration of justice was not brought into disrepute by the fact that the officers had not acted within the time frame authorized for the search.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - Police officers searched a dwelling house on the authority of a search warrant but made an unintentional error on the time factor and conducted the search at a time other than that specified on the warrant - The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, found that the search was not unreasonable simply because it was unlawful.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, stated that there must be a causal connection between the breach of a Charter right and the evidence sought to be excluded - If there is no causal connection the evidence should always be admissible - There is no automatic exclusionary rule - See paragraph 29.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, referred to the factors having a bearing on the admissibility of evidence illegally obtained and stated that the "seriousness of a charge" was not one of them - See paragraphs 26 to 28.

Civil Rights - Topic 8465

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Rules of statutory interpretation - Application of - The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, stated that if there was a conflict between the two official versions of the Charter, the one that is most favorable to the accused should prevail - See paragraph 13.

Civil Rights - Topic 8550

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Bring the administration of justice into disrepute - The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, stated that the french version of s. 24(2) of the Charter imposed a lighter onus on the accused - The french version reads "could" not "would" bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraph 15.

Civil Rights - Topic 8550

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Bring the administration of justice into disrepute - The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, stated that the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute when the admission of the evidence provoked the general public into crying epithets indicative of shock and displeasure occasioned by the condonation of the measures used by the officers - See paragraph 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 8550

Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Bring the administration of justice into disrepute - Police officers searched a dwelling house on the authority of a search warrant - They made an unintentional error on the time factor and conducted the search at a time not permitted by the warrant - The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, held that the evidence obtained as a result of the unintentional error of the police on the time factor was legally admissible and did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 34 and 35.

Civil Rights - Topic 8584

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for raising Charter issues - The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, stated that the court could deal with the issue of admissibility of evidence even where the objection to the evidence was only taken some time after it was admitted - See paragraph 31.

Statutes - Topic 661

Interpretation - Drafting - Bilingual statutes - General principles - The New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, stated that if there was a conflict between the two official versions of the Charter, the one that is most favorable to the accused should prevail - See paragraph 13.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collins (1983), 33 C.R.(3d) 130 (B.C.C.A.), appld. [para. 16].

R. v. Hamill (1984), 14 C.C.C.(3d) 338; 41 C.R.(3d) 123, appld. [para. 16].

Smallwood v. A.G. Canada (1983), 8 C.C.C.(3d) 55; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 301, refd to. [para. 21].

Rothman v. The Queen (1981), 59 C.C.C.(2d) 30 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Simmons (1984), 11 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 7 D.L.R.(4th) 719, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Clarke (1985), 19 C.C.C.(3d) 106; 59 A.R. 212 (C.A.), appld. [para. 29].

R. v. Therens (1985), 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. MacIntyre (a.k.a. MacDonald), Stoyles and Lamb (1982), 69 C.C.C.(2d) 162 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Imough (1982), 9 W.C.B. 106, appld. [para. 32].

R. v. Christian (1982), 7 W.C.B. 467, folld. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 [para. 2].

Counsel:

Peter Corey, for the accused;

William Corby, for the Crown.

This motion was heard before Harper, J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, who delivered the following judgment on March 21, 1986.