R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.) et al., (1999) 2 B.C.T.C. 81 (SC)
| Judge | Romilly, J. |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
| Case Date | January 11, 1999 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (1999), 2 B.C.T.C. 81 (SC) |
R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.) (1999), 2 B.C.T.C. 81 (SC)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. FE.053
Her Majesty The Queen (petitioner) v. Richard Anthony (aka Rio) Sandover-Sly and Darrell Gordon Braun and Sheila Sandover-Sly and North Coast Marine Ltd. (respondent)
(20254)
Indexed As: R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.) et al.
British Columbia Supreme Court
Prince Rupert
Romilly, J.
January 22, 1999.
Summary:
Greene, a fisheries officer, received a tip from an informant that there was fish in the back of a truck. Greene told another fisheries officer, Tupniak. Tupniak followed the truck and approached the truck when it stopped at a service station. He observed that Braun was the driver of the truck. Tupniak told Braun that he would like to look in the back of the truck. Braun unrapped a tarp under which were two freezers. The officer looked in the freezers and found shucked abalone. A search warrant was then obtained and 750 pounds of abalone was seized from the truck along with various documents from inside the truck. Braun and others were charged with purchasing, selling or possessing fish caught contrary to the Fisheries Act and with fishing shellfish during a closed time. At the outset of the trial, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the evidence obtained as a result of the search of the truck. There was also a constitutional challenge to s. 49(1) of the Fisheries Act which gave fisheries officers powers of entry and inspection for purposes of enforcing the Act.
The British Columbia Supreme Court refused to deal with the constitutionality of s. 49(1) where no notice was served under the Constitutional Questions Act. The court held that Tupniak lacked reasonable grounds to conduct an "inspection" of the truck under s. 49(1) of the Fisheries Act and the officer's conduct amounted to a "search" rather than an "inspection". The court held that the "search" was unreasonable and contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. However, the court held that the abalone that was discovered was non-conscriptive evidence and therefore its admission into evidence would not affect the fairness of the trial. The court thus dismissed the defence application to exclude the evidence obtained during the search of the truck.
Civil Rights - Topic 1508
Property - Expectation of privacy - See paragraphs 62 to 66.
Civil Rights - Topic 1642
Property - Search and seizure - Search - What constitutes - See paragraphs 28 to 53.
Civil Rights - Topic 1645
Property - Search and seizure - Consent to search - See paragraphs 83 to 90.
Civil Rights - Topic 1646
Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - See paragraphs 68 to 90.
Civil Rights - Topic 1651
Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - See paragraphs 28 to 90.
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - See paragraphs 91 to 101.
Civil Rights - Topic 8588
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice to attorney general - See paragraphs 10 to 12.
Constitutional Law - Topic 9954
Practice - Notice to Crown of attack on validity of statute - See paragraphs 10 to 12.
Fish and Game - Topic 5606
Enforcement - Powers of fisheries officers - See paragraphs 36 to 53.
Fish and Game - Topic 5642
Enforcement - Searches - Inspection v. search - See paragraphs 6 to 27.
Fish and Game - Topic 5647
Enforcement - Searches - Motor vehicles - See paragraphs 28 to 101.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Mitchell (N.B.) (1998), 104 B.C.A.C. 263; 170 W.A.C. 263; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 521 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
Storgoff, Re, [1945] S.C.R. 526, refd to. [para. 10].
Saxena v. Thailand (Kingdom) (1997), 94 B.C.A.C. 198; 152 W.A.C. 198; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 398 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Stanger (1983), 46 A.R. 241; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Lucas: R. v. Neely (1986), 14 O.A.C. 124; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
McGillivary v. Manitoba (1989), 61 Man.R.(2d) 290; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 60 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].
Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Kinnear (D.J.) (1997), 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 163; 464 A.P.R. 163 (P.E.I.T.D.), affd. (1997), 151 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 471 A.P.R. 83 (P.E.I.C.A.), dist. [para. 13].
R. v. Manna Seafoods Inc. (1994), 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 182; 382 A.P.R. 182 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Sable Fish Packers (1988) Ltd., [1991] N.S.J. No. 316 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Bagshaw, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2009 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].
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. 23].
R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 530; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 568, refd to. [para. 28].
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; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Dersch (W.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768; 158 N.R. 375; 33 B.C.A.C. 269; 54 W.A.C. 269; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 26 C.R.(4th) 289; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 297, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 170; 32 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Sandhu (K.S.) (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 203; 47 W.A.C. 203; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Silveira (A.) (1994), 69 O.A.C. 296; 16 O.R.(3d) 786 (C.A.), affd. [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 450; 38 C.R.(4th) 330; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Martin (P.A.) (1995), 56 B.C.A.C. 241; 92 W.A.C. 241; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
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; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 23, refd to. [para. 32].
R. v. Finlay and Grellette (1985), 110 O.A.C. 279; 48 C.R.(3d) 341 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Dersch et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340; 43 O.A.C. 256; 36 Q.A.C. 258; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 132; 80 C.R.(3d) 299, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Zito (1990), 116 N.R. 357; 43 O.A.C. 273; 36 Q.A.C. 275; 80 C.R.(3d) 311 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Lachance, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1490; 116 N.R. 325; 43 O.A.C. 241; 36 Q.A.C. 243; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 80 C.R.(3d) 374; 50 C.R.R. 260, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Wilson (J.W.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Dedman (1981), 59 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 122 D.L.R.(3d) 655; 23 C.R.(3d) 228 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 38].
R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 8 O.A.C. 31; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 83; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. Esposito (1985), 12 O.A.C. 350; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 88 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1986] 1 S.C.R. viii; 65 N.R. 244; 15 O.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. Hicks (1988), 28 O.A.C. 118; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 394 (C.A.), affd. [1990] 1 S.C.R. 120; 104 N.R. 399; 37 O.A.C. 143; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 575, refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. O'Donnell; R. v. Cluett (1982), 55 N.S.R.(2d) 6; 114 A.P.R. 6; 3 C.C.C.(3d) 333 (C.A.), revd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 216; 61 N.R. 388; 70 N.S.R.(2d) 104; 166 A.P.R. 144; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 318, refd to. [para. 40].
R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].
United States v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411, refd to. [para. 43].
R. v. Ferris (T.L.) (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 244; 176 W.A.C. 244; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. Yamanaka (J.A.) (1998), 111 B.C.A.C. 154; 181 W.A.C. 154; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. Lal (S.N.) (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 47; 184 W.A.C. 47; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. Ellrodt (M.C.) (1998), 112 B.C.A.C. 194; 182 W.A.C. 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
R. v. Burke (A.) (1997), 153 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 475 A.P.R. 91; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 59 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].
R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 58 C.R.(3d) 97; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301, refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Kelly (1985), 7 O.A.C. 46; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Raffai (1983), 20 M.V.R. 212 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.) (1997), 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60].
R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 136, refd to. [para. 60].
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 68].
R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 225; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 481; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 321; 80 C.R.(3d) 129; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 596; 50 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 1 C.R.(4th) 62; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 193; 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 157; 50 C.R.R. 285, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 70].
R. v. Klimchuk (A.W.) (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 26; 9 W.A.C. 26; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].
R. v. I.D.D. (1987), 60 Sask.R. 72; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].
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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173; 24 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 73].
R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].
R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 78].
R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104; [1993] 8 W.W.R. 287; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 203, refd to. [para. 79].
R. v. Zammit (J.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 272; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 80].
R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 16 C.R.(4th) 273, refd to. [para. 83].
R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].
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. 85].
R. v. Clement (N.) (1995), 83 O.A.C. 226; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 103 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 2 S.C.R. 289; 198 N.R. 234; 92 O.A.C. 81; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 52, refd to. [para. 87].
R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 46; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 13 C.R.(5th) 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].
R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 93].
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; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 93].
R. v. Davies (1998), 127 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Yuk. Terr. C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].
Statutes Noticed:
Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, sect. 49(1) [para. 6].
Counsel:
R.J. Gamble, for the Crown;
J. Cheevers, for Richard Sandover-Sly, Sheila Sandover-Sly and North Coast Marine Ltd.;
S. Narbonne, for Darrell Braun.
This application was heard in Prince Rupert, B.C., on January 11, 1999, before Romilly, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 22, 1999.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table Of Cases
...897 R v Salituro, [1991] 3 SCR 654, 131 NR 161, 1991 CanLII 17 .......................... 195 R v Sandover-Sly (1999), 60 CRR (2d) 198, 2 BCTC 81, 1999 CanLII 15129 (SC) ............................................................................ 1057 R v Sault Ste Marie (City), [1978] 2 SC......
-
R. v. McDonald (A.P.) et al., (2002) 203 N.S.R.(2d) 225 (SC)
...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, consd. [para. 5]. R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.) et al. (1999), 2 B.C.T.C. 81 (S.C.), consd. [para. 6]. R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd. (2001), 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304; 203 D.L.R.(4th) 5......
-
R. v. Rhyno (V.W.), 2002 NSPC 8
...Ct.), refd to. [para. 24]. R. v. Bagshaw, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2009 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24]. R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.) et al. (1999), 2 B.C.T.C. 81 (S.C.), refd to. [para. R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 296; 263 A.P.R. 296; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 30 (T.D.......
-
R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.), (2000) 142 B.C.A.C. 198 (CA)
...officers powers of entry and inspection for purposes of enforcing the Act. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 2 B.C.T.C. 81, refused to deal with the constitutionality of s. 49(1) where no notice was served under the Constitutional Questions Act. The court held th......
-
R. v. McDonald (A.P.) et al., (2002) 203 N.S.R.(2d) 225 (SC)
...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, consd. [para. 5]. R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.) et al. (1999), 2 B.C.T.C. 81 (S.C.), consd. [para. 6]. R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd. (2001), 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304; 203 D.L.R.(4th) 5......
-
R. v. Rhyno (V.W.), 2002 NSPC 8
...Ct.), refd to. [para. 24]. R. v. Bagshaw, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2009 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24]. R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.) et al. (1999), 2 B.C.T.C. 81 (S.C.), refd to. [para. R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 296; 263 A.P.R. 296; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 30 (T.D.......
-
R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.), (2000) 142 B.C.A.C. 198 (CA)
...officers powers of entry and inspection for purposes of enforcing the Act. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 2 B.C.T.C. 81, refused to deal with the constitutionality of s. 49(1) where no notice was served under the Constitutional Questions Act. The court held th......
-
R. v. Sandover-Sly (R.A.), 2002 BCCA 56
...officers powers of entry and inspection for purposes of enforcing the Act. The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 2 B.C.T.C. 81, refused to deal with the constitutionality of s. 49(1) where no notice was served under the Constitutional Questions Act. The court held th......
-
Table Of Cases
...897 R v Salituro, [1991] 3 SCR 654, 131 NR 161, 1991 CanLII 17 .......................... 195 R v Sandover-Sly (1999), 60 CRR (2d) 198, 2 BCTC 81, 1999 CanLII 15129 (SC) ............................................................................ 1057 R v Sault Ste Marie (City), [1978] 2 SC......