R. v. Silveira (A.), (1995) 81 O.A.C. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 18, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 81 O.A.C. 161 (SCC)

R. v. Silveira (A.) (1995), 81 O.A.C. 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.