R. v. S.A.B. et al., 2001 ABCA 235

• Judge: McFadyen, Russell and Berger, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 05, 2000
• Citations: 2001 ABCA 235;(2001), 293 A.R. 1 (CA)

R. v. S.A.B. (2001), 293 A.R. 1 (CA);

    257 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. OC.087

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. S.A.B. (appellant) and The Attorney General of Canada (intervener)

(9903-0124-A; 2001 ABCA 235)

Indexed As: R. v. S.A.B. et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

McFadyen, Russell and Berger, JJ.A.

September 21, 2001.

Summary:

The police obtained a DNA warrant authorizing the seizure of a blood sample from the accused. The accused was charged with sexual assault. The accused applied for a declaration that the DNA warrant provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 487.04 to 487.09) violated ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter. The trial judge held that the provisions did not violate s. 8 of the Charter. The trial judge held that the provisions did violate s. 7, but were saved by s. 1 of the Charter. The trial judge convicted the accused. The accused appealed, asserting the unconstitutionality of the DNA warrant provisions and the lack of a factual foundation for the opinion evidence offered by a DNA expert at trial.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Berger, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Unreasonable search and seizure - What constitutes - An accused argued that the DNA warrant provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 487.04 to 487.09) violated s. 8 of the Charter - In particular, the accused argued that: 1) the standard of "reasonable grounds" for the issuance of a warrant did not meet the constitutional threshold required to search within or seize part of the human body; 2) the provisions did not require the necessity of the warrant as a pre-condition to its issuance; 3) the provisions did not require that the least intrusive means be utilized to obtain a sample; 4) the provisions did not mandate medical safeguards; and 5) the provisions did not entitle an accused to notice and a hearing before the issuance of the warrant - The Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the accused's arguments - The court held that the DNA warrant provisions did not violate s. 8 of the Charter - While the provisions might involve more intrusive search techniques than other warrants, there were numerous safeguards provided by the legislation - See paragraphs 10 to 62.

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.2

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Hair and bodily fluid samples - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - An accused argued that the DNA warrant provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 487.04 to 487.09) violated s. 8 of the Charter - In particular, the accused argued, inter alia, that the provisions did not entitle an accused to notice and a hearing before the issuance of the warrant - The Alberta Court of Appeal, in rejecting the argument, agreed that "the question of full answer and defence does not arise at the investigative pretrial stage" - See paragraph 59.

Civil Rights - Topic 4385

Protection against self-incrimination - Incriminating conditions of the body - DNA warrant - An accused argued that the DNA warrant provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 487.04 to 487.09) violated s. 7 of the Charter by infringing the principle against self-incrimination - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the DNA warrant provisions did not violate s. 7 - The taking of bodily samples for DNA analysis violated the longstanding proposition that an accused should not be compelled to participate in the case against him - However, the principle against self-incrimination was not absolute - The DNA warrant provisions struck a balance between the principle against self-incrimination and the principle that all relevant evidence should be available in the search for truth -This balance was found in the value of DNA analysis to the investigation of serious offences, its capacity to both inculpate and exculpate and the restrictions placed on its use by the legislation - See paragraphs 64 to 90.

Civil Rights - Topic 8591

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Onus or burden of proof - An accused argued that the DNA warrant provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 487.04 to 487.09) violated s. 7 of the Charter by infringing the principle against self-incrimination - The accused argued that, because he had invoked the principle against self-incrimination, the Crown had the onus of establishing that an appropriate balance between the relevant principles of fundamental justice had been struck and that there was no breach of s. 7 - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the onus remained on the party alleging the violation until the analysis was complete and a violation was found - Until the balancing of competing principles under s. 7 was completed, no breach of s. 7 had been established - The onus remained on the accused throughout the balancing process -See paragraph 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 3071

Special powers - Forensic DNA analysis - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 and Civil Rights - Topic 4385 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4985

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Powers re grounds not raised on appeal - The accused applied for a declaration that the DNA warrant provisions of the Criminal Code (ss. 487.04 to 487.09) violated ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter - The trial judge held that the provisions did not violate s. 8 of the Charter - The trial judge held that the provisions did violate s. 7, but were saved by s. 1 of the Charter - The accused appealed - The Crown did not file a cross-appeal or serve notice to vary the judge's determination with respect to s. 7 - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that it was entitled to consider the s. 7 issue - The court stated that "This court is not bound by the elements of the trial judge's decision which lie in favour of the [accused] and from which no cross appeal or notice of intention to vary was taken. The whole case is before the court to the extent necessary to make the proper findings between the parties. This jurisdiction arises from both Rule 518(e) [of the Alberta Rules of Court] and this court's equitable jurisdiction to determine the matters in dispute between the parties." - See paragraph 4.

Criminal Law - Topic 5585

Evidence and witnesses - Scientific and medical evidence - DNA evidence - The complainant alleged that she was sexually assaulted and impregnated by the accused -DNA analysis was done on blood samples seized from the accused and compared with the aborted fetus' DNA - Five probes returned inculpatory results - One probe did not match - The expert disregarded the non-matching probe as a mutation - The expert noted that "mutations are well documented in paternity testing, and the international guidelines state that at least two exclusions have to be noted before parental exclusion can be determined" - No evidence was given as to the nature of the international guidelines - If that sample was not a mutation, the accused was not father of the fetus - There was as little as a one in 800 chance that the sample was a mutation - The trial judge convicted the accused - The accused appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the expert opinion lacked a factual foundation - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court had reservations regarding the weight that should be given to the DNA evidence, but considered the remaining evidence and affirmed the verdict - See paragraphs 92 to 101.

Evidence - Topic 7058

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Particular matters - DNA evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5585 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Brighteyes (P.J.) (1997), 199 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 3].

Trask Well Co. v. Northern Food Products Inc. (1952), 31 M.P.R. 325 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Mayne v. Kidd, [1951] 2 D.L.R. 652 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Terceira (J.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 15; 15 C.R.(5th) 359 (C.A.), affd. [1993] 3 S.C.R. 866; 250 N.R. 98; 129 O.A.C. 283, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 9].

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; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [paras. 11, 107].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Gisby (K.) (2000), 271 A.R. 303; 234 W.A.C. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404; 33 C.R.(4th) 147, refd to. [para. 15].

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, refd to. [paras. 25, 103].

Thomson 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; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 25].

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; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244, refd to. [paras. 27, 109].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296, refd to. [paras. 28, 106].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [paras. 29, 106].

Société Radio-Canada v. Lessard (juge), Quebec (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 421; 130 N.R. 321; 43 Q.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 517, refd to. [para. 37].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Lessard - see Société Radio-Canada v. Lessard (juge), Quebec (Procureur général) et autres.

S.F. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2000), 128 O.A.C. 329; 32 C.R.(5th) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Feeney (M.) (2001), 149 B.C.A.C. 112; 244 W.A.C. 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278, refd to. [para. 50].

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

R. v. Galbraith and Saikaly (1989), 98 A.R. 241; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) and Grainger and Canada (Attorney General) 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, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. S.J.S. (1999), 187 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (No. 6) (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Feeney (M.) (No. 2) (1999), 7 B.C.T.C. 216; 23 C.R.(5th) 74 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Finlay and Grellette (1985), 11 O.A.C. 279; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 48 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1986] 1 S.C.R. ix; 65 N.R. 159; 15 O.A.C. 238, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 180 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. White (J.K.) (1999), 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 67, 121].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Fash (D.M.) (1999), 244 A.R. 146; 209 W.A.C. 146; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 144 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 77, 110].

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; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 144, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Wilder (D.M.) (2000), 132 B.C.A.C. 122; 215 W.A.C. 122; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1: 111 C.C.C.(3d) 403, refd to. [para. 83].

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. 87].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 251; 39 B.C.L.R. 201; 29 C.R.(3d) 193; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. English (1982), 47 Alta. L.R.(2d) 372 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Dean (1992), 127 A.R. 376; 20 W.A.C. 376; 2 Alta. L.R.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 32 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 100].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270: 78 C.C.C.(3d) 510; 18 C.R.(4th) 274, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 107].

Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

Hornal v. Neuberger Products Ltd., [1957] 1 Q.B. 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

Wright v. Wright (1948), 77 C.L.R. 191, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Khea; R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Khawaja, [1984] 1 A.C. 74 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 117].

College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) v. J.C. (1990), 42 B.C.L.R.(2d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119].

McKee v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.), [1991] B.C.J. No. 3288 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 56 C.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 130].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487.05, sect. 487.06 [paras. 7, 111].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (June 22, 1995), pp. 14489 [paras. 14, 16]; 14491, 14492 [para. 16].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Code of Criminal Procedure, Report on Recodifying Criminal Procedure (1991), vol. 1, pp. 28, 62 [para. 47].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Police Powers: Search and Seizure in Criminal Law Enforcement (1983), pp. 29, 30 [para. 43].

Corpus Juris Secundum (1996), vol. 32A, p. 688, para. 1299 [para. 114].

Hale, Matthew, History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), vol. 2, p. 113 [para. 44].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 17, p. 16, para. 19 [para. 113].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 642 [para. 94].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1961), p. 70, para. 2193 [para. 83].

Counsel:

A. Schlayer, for the respondent, Alberta Justice;

L.G. Anderson, Q.C., for the appellant;

R.C. Reimer, for the intervener, Justice Canada.

This appeal was heard in Edmonton, Alberta, on September 5, 2000, by McFadyen, Russell and Berger, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The judgment of the court was delivered on September 21, 2001, including the following opinions:

Russell, J.A. (McFadyen, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 101;

Berger, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 102 to 138.