R. v. Silveira (A.), (1995) 181 N.R. 161 (SCC)
Judge | Iacobucci and Major, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | May 18, 1995 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1995), 181 N.R. 161 (SCC);28 CRR (2d) 189;[1995] SCJ No 38 (QL);81 OAC 161;124 DLR (4th) 193;1995 CanLII 89 (SCC);[1995] CarswellOnt 21;[1995] ACS no 38;23 OR (3d) 256;JE 95-1111;181 NR 161;[1995] 2 SCR 297;97 CCC (3d) 450;27 WCB (2d) 60;38 CR (4th) 330 |
R. v. Silveira (A.) (1995), 181 N.R. 161 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Antonio Silveira (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(File No. 24013)
Indexed As: R. v. Silveira (A.)
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,
Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,
Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
May 18, 1995.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of three counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking. The accused appealed the convictions. He claimed the evidence of cocaine and marked monies seized from his residence resulted from an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter and that the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2).
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Abella, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 69 O.A.C. 296, dismissed the appeal. The court stated that police entry on the premises before a search warrant was obtained violated s. 8 of the Charter (unlawful trespass), but the evidence was not to be excluded under s. 24(2). The accused appealed. It was conceded that the evidence was secured as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure. The sole issue was whether the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
The Supreme Court of Canada, La Forest, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence.
Civil Rights - Topic 1646
Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - Police surveillance identified the accused as the probable supplier from a cache of drugs at his residence, where his family lived - Police arrested the accused in public - Police feared news of the arrest would reach the family before they could obtain a search warrant and that the cocaine and marked money might be destroyed - Accordingly, police entered the premises without warrant to "secure" the premises until the warrant arrived - Police did not search for cocaine until the warrant arrived - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that warrantless entry of a dwelling house to "secure" the premises while awaiting a warrant violated s. 8 of the Charter - Whether the evidence should be excluded required balancing the accused's privacy rights in his own home with the need to enter without warrant in exigent circumstances to preserve evidence - The court held that the evidence was not to be excluded - It was real evidence that would inevitably have been discovered - Admission would not affect the fairness of the trial - Although warrantless entry in a dwelling house was a serious Charter breach, it was mitigated by the existence of exigent circumstances where police in good faith believed they had the right to enter to preserve evidence - Admission of the evidence would not bring the admission of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 1 to 45.
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 and second Narcotic Control - Topic 2035 ].
Narcotic Control - Topic 2035
Search and seizure - Search warrants - "Securing" premises until search warrant arrives - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].
Narcotic Control - Topic 2035
Search and seizure - Search warrants - "Securing" premises until search warrant arrives - Police, while awaiting a warrant, entered the accused's home without warrant to "secure" the premises to avoid the destruction of evidence - The warrantless entry was contrary to s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act and violated s. 8 of the Charter - The issue was whether the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "s. 24(2) of the Charter should not be used as a matter of course to excuse conduct which has in the past been found to be unlawful. This case has confirmed that to enter and search a dwelling-house without a warrant constitutes a very serious breach of the Narcotic Control Act and the historic inviolability of a dwelling place. Therefore, in the future, even if such exigent circumstances exist, the evidence would likely be found inadmissible under s. 24(2). It is difficult to envisage how the admission of evidence could not bring the administration of justice into disrepute since in subsequent cases, it will be very difficult for the police to claim that they acted in good faith if they entered the dwelling without prior judicial authorization. ... Although I do not wish to foreclose the possibility that the evidence may still be admitted under s. 24(2), it will only occur in rare cases." - See paragraph 37.
Police - Topic 3108
Powers - Investigation - Power to enter private property - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 and second Narcotic Control - Topic 2035 ].
Cases Noticed:
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; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 12].
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. 12].
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, dist. [para. 17].
R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 67 C.R.(3d) 252; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 46, refd to. [para. 19].
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. 19].
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, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 22].
Segura v. United States (1984), 468 U.S. 796 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 32].
United States v. Mabry (1987), 809 F.2d 671 (10th Cir.), refd to. [para. 35].
United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, refd to. [para. 50].
R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 50].
R. v. Colet, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 2; 35 N.R. 227; 57 C.C.C.(2d) 105, refd to. [para. 54].
Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Landry, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145; 65 N.R. 161; 14 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Macooh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 802; 155 N.R. 44; 141 A.R. 321; 46 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 55].
Semayne's Case (1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91; 77 E.R. 194, refd to. [para. 56].
R. v. Lyons, Prevedoros and McGuire, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633; 56 N.R. 6; 58 A.R. 2, refd to. [para. 58].
R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].
Texas v. Brown (1983), 103 S. Ct. 1535 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 60].
United States v. Edwards (1979), 602 F.2d 458 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 62].
Commonwealth v. Amaral (1983), 450 N.E.2d 656 (Mass.), refd to. [para. 62].
United States v. Riley (1992), 968 F.2d 422, refd to. [para. 62].
R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 63].
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, refd to. [para. 63].
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; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 67].
Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Potash et Sélection Milton, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 406; 168 N.R. 241; 61 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 67].
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; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 68].
R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 71].
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, refd to. [para. 97].
Entick v. Carrington (1765), 19 St. Tr. 1029, refd to. [para. 116].
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. 123].
R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 135].
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. 139].
Olmsted v. United States (1928), 277 U.S. 438, refd to. [para. 143].
R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, refd to. [para. 143].
R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 67 C.R.(3d) 224; 37 C.R.R. 252, refd to. [para. 147].
United States v. Santana (1976), 427 U.S. 38 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 154].
R. v. Burlingham (T.W.) (1995), 181 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 160].
Elkins v. United States (1960), 364 U.S. 206 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 165].
R. v. Young (A.D.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 116; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 559 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 166].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 24(2) [para. 14].
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 4(1), sect. 4(2) [para. 77]; sect. 10, sect. 12 [para. 14].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Brennan, J., Profiles: The Constitutionalist, The New Yorker (March 12, 1990), p. 45 [para. 167].
Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. 1955), vol. 10, p. 354 [para. 56].
Counsel:
Paul B. Rosen, for the appellant;
Robert W. Hubbard and Scott K. Fenton, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Paul B. Rosen, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Federal Department of Justice, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 9, 1994, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on May 18, 1995, and the following opinions were filed:
Cory, J. (Sopinka, Gonthier, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 45;
L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 46 to 75;
La Forest, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 76 to 170.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Grant (D.), (2009) 391 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 75]. R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163, refd to. [para. 75]. R. v. ......
-
R v Hills, 2020 ABCA 263
...of America v Cotroni 1989 CanLII 106 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1469; R v Elshaw, 1991 CanLii 28, ]1991] 3 SCR 24)”: R v Silveira, [1995] 2 SCR 297 at para 100. Further, the Supreme Court “has traditionally taken a dim view of concessions in constitutional cases, given their potentia......
-
R. v. Buhay (M.A.), (2003) 177 Man.R.(2d) 72 (SCC)
...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, refd to. [para. 50]. R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 52]. R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. ......
-
R. v. Rochat (R.R.), (1999) 241 A.R. 201 (ProvCt)
...C.C.C. 407 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 146]. Comeau v. R. (1961), 131 C.C.C. 139 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 147]. R. v. Silveira (A.) (1995), 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 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.(3......
-
R. v. Grant (D.), (2009) 391 N.R. 1 (SCC)
...R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 75]. R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163, refd to. [para. 75]. R. v. ......
-
R v Hills, 2020 ABCA 263
...of America v Cotroni 1989 CanLII 106 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1469; R v Elshaw, 1991 CanLii 28, ]1991] 3 SCR 24)”: R v Silveira, [1995] 2 SCR 297 at para 100. Further, the Supreme Court “has traditionally taken a dim view of concessions in constitutional cases, given their potentia......
-
R. v. Buhay (M.A.), (2003) 177 Man.R.(2d) 72 (SCC)
...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, refd to. [para. 50]. R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 52]. R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. ......
-
R. v. Rochat (R.R.), (1999) 241 A.R. 201 (ProvCt)
...C.C.C. 407 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 146]. Comeau v. R. (1961), 131 C.C.C. 139 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 147]. R. v. Silveira (A.) (1995), 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 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.(3......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 6 10, 2020)
...Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 24(2), R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, R. v. Paterson, 2017 SCC 15, R. v. Silveira, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297, R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, R. v. Poirier, 2016 ONCA 582, R. v. Rover, 2018 ONCA 745, R. v. McGuffie, 2016 ONCA 365 R. v. B., 2020 ONCA 245 Ke......
-
No Jury Trial For Securities Offences: Economic Penalties Are Not A 'More Severe Punishment' Under Section 11(f) Of The Charter
...without merit. However, Justices Berger and Slatter found the appellant's suggestion to be "entirely unworkable" and cited R v Silveira, [1995] 2 SCR 297 for the principal that the interpretation of the Charter must be "practical". The majority held that the appellants' interpretation was n......
-
Table of cases
...51 CCC (3d) 343, [1989] AJ No 939 (CA) ................................................................................208 R v Silveira, [1995] 2 SCR 297, 124 DLR (4th) 193, [1995] SCJ No 38 ................28 R v Silverthorn, 2012 ONSC 6784 .......................................................
-
Digest: R v McMahon, 2018 SKCA 26
...504, 29 MVR (5th) 17 R v Shepherd, 2009 SCC 35, [2009] 2 SCR 527, 309 DLR (4th) 139, [2009] 8 WWR 193, 66 CR (6th) 149 R v Silveira, [1995] 2 SCR 297, 124 DLR (4th) 193, 23 OR (3d) 256, 81 OAC 161, 97 CCC (3d) 450, 38 CR (4th) 330 R v Simpson (1993), 12 OR (3d) 182, 60 OAC 327, 79 CCC (3d) ......
-
Table of Cases
...285 R. v. Silveira, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297, 124 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 97 C.C.C. (3d) 450 ..............................64, 66, 100, 101, 282, 285, 286, 289, 322 R. v. Silvini (1997), 96 O.A.C. 310 (C.A.) .................................................................. 215 R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2......
-
Table of Cases
...519 R v Shayesteh, [1996] OJ No 3934 (CA) ....................................................................227 R v Silveira, [1995] 2 SCR 297 .................................................................................... 533 R v Simpson (1993), 12 OR (3d) 182 (CA) .......................