R. v. Scoville (J.), (2011) 312 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 21, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2011), 312 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (NLPC)

R. v. Scoville (J.) (2011), 312 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (NLPC);

    971 A.P.R. 181

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. SE.034

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jody Scoville

(2011 PCNL 1311PA00183)

Indexed As: R. v. Scoville (J.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

July 21, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was charged with offences contrary to ss. 4(1) and 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The accused asserted that his s. 8 Charter rights were breached and that the resulting evidence should be excluded.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court agreed and excluded the resulting evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - A police officer obtained a telewarrant to search the accused's home pursuant to s. 11 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - Section 487.1(7) of the Criminal Code required that a "facsimile" of the warrant be given to any "person present and ostensibly in control of the premises" - Section 29(1) required that an officer who was executing a warrant "have it with him, where feasible to do so, and to produce it when requested to do so" - The accused asked twice to see the warrant - His wife also asked to see the warrant - Despite the requests, they were not give a facsimile of the warrant before the police entered their residence or "as soon as practicable thereafter" - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court held that the police failed to comply with ss. 29(1) and 487.1(7) - Both sections were mandatory - However a breach of either or both sections did not automatically result in a breach of s. 8 of the Charter - That depended on the circumstances - Here, the search was unreasonable and breached s. 8 - The police purposely declined to comply with s. 29(1) and provided no reasonable basis for the failure to comply with s. 487.1(7) - The court concluded that it was appropriate to exclude the evidence - The breach was serious and there was a strong need for the court to disassociate itself from the conduct of the police - The accused had a high expectation of privacy - Highly relevant evidence would be excluded which would guarantee the accused's acquittal - However, because of the seriousness of the violation and because it was wilfully committed three times, this was a proper case for exclusion.

Civil Rights - Topic 1556

Property - Land - Search or seizure of private residence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8367

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - General - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court summarized the principles applicable to s. 24 of the Charter as set out in R. v. Grant (D.) (S.C.C.) - See paragraph 78.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 and second Criminal Law - Topic 3057 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3057

Special powers - Search warrants - Telewarrants - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3057

Special powers - Search warrants - Telewarrants - A police officer obtained a telewarrant to search the accused's home pursuant to s. 11 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - The warrant was not issued in form 5.1 as prescribed by s. 487.1(6.1) of the Criminal Code - The information to obtain the warrant did not include a statement as to whether "any prior application" for a search warrant "in respect of the same matter" had been made - The information indicated that it was "impracticable" to appear before a justice in person to obtain the warrant as there were no judges available at that time - However, the warrant did not indicate that the justice was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for dispensing with the information being presented in person - The warrant did not contain the information at the bottom of form 5.1 advising the occupants of how to determine the basis on which the warrant was issued and what was seized - However, the accused obtained a copy of the information on oath and knew what was seized - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court defined "impracticable" in the context of s. 487.1 as being "not practical" - Here, it was not practical for the officer to appear before a justice in person - The on call duty judge system prevented that from occurring - Although it would have been preferable for the justice to have indicated in the warrant that he was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to dispense with the officer appearing in person, a failure to do so was not fatal - Finally, and most importantly, the information provided a reasonable basis for the justice to have issued the warrant - Thus the crucial role of there being an appropriate judicial review and determination of a request by the police was fulfilled - Although the failure to comply with the form 5.1 requirement and s. 487.1(4)(d) were not to be countenanced, they were defects of form rather than substance - Having said that, the police should now be clearly alerted to the requirement of strict compliance with those provisions - See paragraphs 12 to 17 and 33 to 55 - Alternatively, if the warrant was invalid, the balancing of factors would not have led to the exclusion of the evidence - The breach was technical - There was no need for the judiciary to disassociate itself from that type of error - The evidence obtained was relevant and reliable - See paragraphs 105 and 106.

Criminal Law- Topic 3096

Special powers - Issue of search warrants - Duty of judge respecting - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court reviewed the role of a judge in issuing a search warrant - See paragraphs 27 and 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 3113

Special powers - Setting aside search warrants - General - Scope of review - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court reviewed the role of a judge in reviewing a challenged search warrant - See paragraphs 29 to 32.

Narcotic Control - Topic 2024

Search and seizure - Search warrants - Execution - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2027

Search and seizure - Search warrants - Form and contents - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 3057 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2028

Search and seizure - Search warrants - Issuance of - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 3057 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 2043

Search and seizure - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information - Sufficiency of form and contents - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 3057 ].

Police - Topic 3186

Powers - Search - Private property - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 3057 ].

Words and Phrases

Impracticable - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court held that "impracticable" as used in s. 847.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, meant "not practical" - See paragraph 37.

Cases Noticed:

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. 13, footnote 1].

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, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 1].

R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 1].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Newell (R.) (2009), 284 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 68; 875 A.P.R. 68; 243 C.C.C.(3d) 33 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Hatton (R.A.) (2011), 509 A.R. 392; 517 W.A.C. 392 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Campbell (N.M.) (2011), 418 N.R. 1; 279 O.A.C. 52; 2011 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Gray (L.M.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 211; 41 W.A.C. 211; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Tessling (W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432; 326 N.R. 228; 192 O.A.C. 168, refd to. [para. 27].

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, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Lising (R.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343; 341 N.R. 147; 217 B.C.A.C. 65; 358 W.A.C. 65; 2005 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Pires - see R. v. Lising (R.) et al.

R. v. Veinot (K.A.) (1995), 144 N.S.R.(2d) 388; 416 A.P.R. 388 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Times Square Book Store, Re (1985), 10 O.A.C. 105; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 503 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

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. 31].

R. v. Allain (S.) (1998), 205 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 523 A.P.R. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Monroe (D.T.) (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 256; 147 W.A.C. 256; 8 C.R.(5th) 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Manders (2007), 54 M.V.R.(5th) 22 (Ont. C.A.), refd to.[para. 31].

R. v. Saunders (G.T.) (2003), 232 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 22; 690 A.P.R. 22; 181 C.C.C.(3d) 268 (N.L.C.A.), folld. [para. 32].

R. v. Nguyen (Q.H.) (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 91; 450 W.A.C. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Ballendine (K.D.) (2011), 304 B.C.A.C. 20; 513 W.A.C. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Erickson (D.P.) (2003), 192 B.C.A.C. 203; 315 W.A.C. 203; 19 C.R.(6th) 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Wall, [2004] B.C.J. No. 220 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Dueck (P.L.) et al. (2005), 216 B.C.A.C. 180; 356 W.A.C. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Cornell (J.M.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 142; 404 N.R. 133; 487 A.R. 1; 495 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Bohn (J.A.) (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 263; 222 W.A.C. 263; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 320 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Patrick (R.S.) (2007), 417 A.R. 276; 410 W.A.C. 276; 227 C.C.C.(3d) 525; 2007 ABCA 308, affd. [2009] 1 S.C.R. 579; 387 N.R. 44; 454 A.R. 1; 455 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 3].

R. v. Martin (R.) (2011), 306 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 180; 951 A.P.R. 180 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Al-Fartossy (S.) (2007), 425 A.R. 336; 418 W.A.C. 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67, footnote 4].

R. v. J.E.B. (1989), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 312; 247 A.P.R. 312; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Harrison (B.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 494; 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Tosczak (L.M.) (2010), 343 Sask.R. 295; 472 W.A.C. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Blake (O.) (2010), 257 O.A.C. 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Wong (J.S.) (2010), 285 B.C.A.C. 157; 482 W.A.C. 157; 2010 BCCA 160, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Ngai (K.W.) (2010), 474 A.R. 230; 479 W.A.C. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Forsythe (J.R.) (2009), 251 Man.R.(2d) 90; 478 W.A.C. 90; 250 C.C.C.(3d) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. McCrimmon (D.R.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 402; 406 N.R. 152; 293 B.C.A.C. 144; 496 W.A.C. 144, refd to. [para. 74, footnote 6].

R. v. Stanton (N.C.) (2010), 286 B.C.A.C. 207; 484 W.A.C. 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Borden (R.D.) (2010), 290 N.S.R.(2d) 57; 920 A.P.R. 57 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Cole (R.) (2011), 277 O.A.C. 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Sandhu (A.S.) (2011), 274 O.A.C. 278 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Beaulieu (G.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 248; 398 N.R. 345, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Ramage (R.) (2010), 265 O.A.C. 158; 2010 ONCA 488, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Keating (D.) et al. (2010), 302 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 215; 938 A.P.R. 215 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Gould (P.) (2011), 306 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 342; 951 A.P.R. 342 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Obed (S.) (2010), 300 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 927 A.P.R. 1 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Pike (A.N.) (2010), 297 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 342; 918 A.P.R. 342 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Piercey (J.) (2011), 312 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 87; 971A.P.R. 87 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Blanchard (P.J.) (2011), 308 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 958 A.P.R. 91 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. B.D. (2011), 273 O.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Smith (A.K.) (2010), 305 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 285; 948 A.P.R. 285 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Suberu (M.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 460; 390 N.R. 303; 252 O.A.C. 340, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Stevens (L.) (2011), 282 O.A.C.16; 2011 ONCA 504, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Farrah (D.) (2011), 268 Man.R.(2d) 112; 520 W.A.C. 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Nguyen (D.V.) (2011), 281 O.A.C. 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Kavanagh (M.) (2011), 305 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201; 948 A.P.R. 201 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Ayers (P.) (2010), 299 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 278; 926 A.P.R. 278 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Loewen (D.J.) (2011), 415 N.R. 397; 502 A.R. 3; 517 W.A.C. 3 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Reddy (C.J.) (2010), 282 B.C.A.C. 51; 476 W.A.C. 51; 2010 BCCA 11, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Martin (G.W.) (2010), 361 N.B.R.(2d) 251; 931 A.P.R. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Maher, [2011] N.J. No. 222 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Crisby (B.R.) (2009), 288 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 237; 888 A.P.R. 237 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Maihi, [2002] NZCA 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487.1(7) [para. 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Quigley, T., Was it Worth the Wait? The Supreme Court's New Approaches to Detention and Exclusion of Evidence (2009), 66 C.R.(6th) 8, generally [para. 71, footnote 5].

Stewart, H., The Grant Trilogy and the Right Against Self-incrimination (2009), 66 C.R.(6th) 97, generally [para. 71, footnote 5].

Stone's Justice Manual (67th Ed. 1935), p. 170 [para. 82].

Stuart, D., Welcome Flexibility and Better Criteria for Section 24(2) (2009), 66 C.R.(6th) 82, generally [para. 71, footnote 5].

Counsel:

A. May, for Her Majesty the Queen;

J. Goudie, for Mr. Scoville.

This appeal was heard at Corner Brook, N.L., on July 18 and 19, 2011, by Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 21, 2011.