R. v. Simmons, (1984) 3 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Howland, C.J.O., Martin, Lacourcière, Houlden and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 11, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1984), 3 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

R. v. Simmons (1984), 3 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Simmons

Indexed As: R. v. Simmons

Ontario Court of Appeal

Howland, C.J.O., Martin, Lacourcière, Houlden and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.

April 11, 1984.

Summary:

Simmons was charged with importing into Canada a narcotic. The trial judge acquitted the accused. The trial judge found that Simons's rights under s. 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated and that evidence of drugs on her body discovered during a search was inadmissible. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and directed a new trial. The Court of Appeal held that Simmons was not detained (when she was searched for contraband by a customs officer) for purposes of s. 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies, exclusion of evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal referred to circumstances which did not justify the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence - The court found that the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute for purposes of s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights - See paragraph 69.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a temporary restraint and search of persons entering Canada (under the Customs Act) was not "unreasonable" for purposes of s. 8 of the Charter of Rights - See paragraphs 72, 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention defined - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "detention" in s. 10 of the Charter of Rights connotes some form of compulsory restraint by process of law - See paragraph 45.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention, what constitutes - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the restraint involved in a border search for contraband conducted by a customs officer under the Customs Act does not constitute detention for purposes of s. 10 of the Charter of Rights - See paragraph 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 8550

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Particular phrases - Bring the administration of justice into disrepute (s. 24(2)) - The Ontario Court of Appeal referred to relevant considerations in determining whether the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute - See paragraph 66.

Words and Phrases

Detention - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "detention" as found in s. 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Chromiak (1979), 29 N.R. 441; 49 C.C.C.(2d) 257; 102 D.L.R.(3d) 368, refd to. [paras. 20, 77].

Brownridge v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 926, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Altseimer (1982), 1 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 29 C.R.(3d) 276, refd to. [paras. 24, 78].

R. v. Currie (1983), 56 N.S.R.(2d) 583; 117 A.P.R. 583; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 217; 33 C.R.(3d) 227 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 78].

R. v. Trask (1983), 42 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 30; 122 A.P.R. 30; 21 M.P.R. 49; 6 C.C.C.(3d) 132 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 27, 78].

R. v. Therens (1983), 23 Sask.R. 81; 33 C.R.(3d) 204 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 28, 78].

R. v. Rahn, 50 A.R. 43, refd to. [paras. 30, 78].

R. v. Campbell, 50 A.R. 54, refd to. [paras. 30, 78].

R. v. Engen, 50 A.R. 51, refd to. [paras. 30, 78].

Re Jamieson and the Queen (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 430, refd to. [para. 37].

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, refd to. [para. 39].

United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, refd to. [paras. 39, 93].

United States v. Ek, 676 F.2d 379, refd to. [para. 40].

United States v. Sandler, 644 F.2d 1163, refd to. [paras. 41, 93].

United States v. Barger, 574 F.2d 1283, refd to. [para. 41].

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, refd to. [paras. 41, 93].

United States v. Stornini, 443 F.2d 833, refd to. [paras. 41, 93].

United States v. Price, 472 F.2d 573, refd to. [paras. 41, 93].

Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, refd to. [paras. 42, 93].

Chavez-Martinez v. United States, 407 F.2d 535, refd to. [para. 42].

United States v. Salinas, 439 F.2d 376, refd to. [paras. 43, 93].

United States v. Garcia, 496 F.2d 670, refd to. [paras. 43, 93].

United States v. McCain, 556 F.2d 253, refd to. [paras. 43, 93].

R. v. Simon (1982), 38 A.R. 377; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 86, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Manninen (1983), 1 O.A.C. 199; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 58].

Queen, The v. Wray (1970), 11 D.L.R.(3d) 673, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Doyle (1886), 12 O.R. 347, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Hogan (1974), 2 N.R. 343; 18 C.C.C.(2d) 65, refd to. [para. 60].

Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 383, refd to. [para. 61].

Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Collins (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 141; 33 C.R.(3d) 130 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 61, 64].

R. v. Chapin (1983), 7 C.C.C.(3d) 538 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Rothman (1981), 35 N.R. 485; 121 D.L.R.(3d) 578, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Jumaga (1976), 9 N.R. 102; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 639, refd to. [para. 85].

United States v. Berard and Lai, 281 F.Supp. 328, refd to. [para. 93].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982, sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 24, sect. 33 [para. 12].

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-40, sect. 143, sect. 144 [para. 5]; sect. 203 [para. 14].

Immigration Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, sect. 20 [para. 13].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 2(c) [para. 19].

United States Code, sect. 1582 [para. 38].

United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [para. 52].

Counsel:

Michael R. Dambrot, for the Crown, appellant;

Barry A. Fox, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Howland, C.J.O., Martin, Lacourcière, Houlden and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on November 24 and 25, 1983.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was released on April 11, 1984 and the following opinions were filed:

Howland, C.J.O. - see paragraphs 1 to 75;

Tarnopolsky, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 76 to 98.

Martin, Lacourcière and Houlden, JJ.A., concurred with Howland, C.J.O.