R. v. Spindloe,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Cameron and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2001 SKCA 58
• Citation: (2001), 207 Sask.R. 3 (CA),2001 SKCA 58,[2002] 5 WWR 239,154 CCC (3d) 8,42 CR (5th) 58,[2001] CarswellSask 303,[2001] SJ No 266 (QL),207 Sask R 3,247 WAC 3,50 WCB (2d) 11,207 Sask.R. 3,[2001] S.J. No 266 (QL),(2001), 207 SaskR 3 (CA),247 W.A.C. 3,207 SaskR 3
• Date: 03 April 2001
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)

R. v. Spindloe (M.) (2001), 207 Sask.R. 3 (CA);

    247 W.A.C. 3

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.023

Michael Spindloe (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(No. 7863)

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Michael Spindloe (respondent)

(No. 7884)

(2001 SKCA 58)

Indexed As: R. v. Spindloe (M.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Cameron and Jackson, JJ.A.

April 27, 2001.

Summary:

Police obtained a search warrant and seized a number of items from the accused's store. The accused was charged with knowingly promoting or selling instruments for illicit drug use, contrary to s. 462.2(a) of the Criminal Code. The accused argued that s. 462.2 was vague and overbroad in violation of s. 7 of the Charter. The accused also challenged the search warrant. The trial judge found that the warrant was defective and the search was unreasonable in violation of s. 8 of the Charter, but that the evidence obtained should not be excluded under s. 24(2). The trial judge also concluded that s. 462.2 was neither vague nor overbroad. The accused was convicted and a $1,000 fine was imposed. In a subsequent application for the return of the seized goods, the trial judge ordered that all of the seized items be returned to the accused pursuant to s. 490(9) of the Criminal Code. The accused appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence under s. 24(2) and in failing to find s. 462.2 uncon­stitutional on the basis that it was vague and overbroad. He also appealed the sentence. The Crown appealed from the trial judge's decision which permitted the seized items to be returned to the accused.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 183 Sask.R. 197, dismissed the appeals. Both the accused and the Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the accused's appeal. The court al­lowed the Crown appeal and set aside the order under s. 490(9) of the Code which per­mitted that the seized items be returned to the accused.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - Expectation of privacy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1650

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Plain view doctrine - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - The accused appealed his conviction for knowingly promoting or selling instru­ments for illicit drug use, contrary to s. 462.2(a) of the Criminal Code - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed that s. 462.2 did not violate s. 7 of the Charter on the basis of vagueness or on the basis that it was overly broad - See para­graphs 59 to 93 and 131.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Overbreadth principle - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8367

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - General - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that it was open to a court to draw upon principles such as those embodied in the maxims "ex dolo malo non oritur actio" and "ex turpi causa" when applying s. 24(1) of the Charter - The court stated that "[n]ot only are they grounded in venerable judicial notions of remedial appropriateness and justice, they can serve to provide some concrete lines of guidance in the appli­cation of the section - a constitutional law provision. So I have no hesitation in adopt­ing them as part of the framework of principle governing the application of the section" - See paragraph 171.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police obtained a search warrant and seized a number of items from the accused's store - The accused was convicted of knowingly promoting or selling instruments for illicit drug use, contrary to s. 462.2(a) of the Criminal Code - The trial judge found that the search warrant was improperly issued and defective and that the search was warrantless and unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter - However, the trial judge ruled that admission of the seized items under s. 24(2) would not bring the ad­ministration of justice into disrepute - The trial judge considered that much of the evidence was in plain view in a retail business and there was a reduced expecta­tion of privacy - Further, although the warrant was improperly issued, the officers had sufficient grounds to obtain a valid warrant and had not acted in bad faith - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal af­firmed the trial judge's decision respect­ing admission of the evidence - See para­graphs 132 to 159.

Civil Rights - Topic 8370

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - When denied - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3170 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2504

Instruments and literature for illicit drug use - Validity of statutory provisions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3170

Special powers - Power of seizure - Detention or return of things seized - The accused was con­victed of knowingly promoting or selling instruments for illicit drug use (Criminal Code, s. 462.2(a)) - The trial judge found that a search warrant was defective and that the search violated s. 8 of the Charter - However, the trial judge declined to ex­clude the seized items under s. 24(2) - The accused applied under s. 490(9) of the Code for the return of the seized items - Alternatively, he sought a return of the seized items pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, relying on the s. 8 breaches - The trial judge, acting under s. 490(9), ordered the return of the seized items - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set aside the order - The trial judge erred in acting under s. 490(9) - The seized items were exhibits - Section 490 did not address the return or forfeiture of exhibits, but rather was restricted to the pre-trial disposition of things seized - The court would not have ordered the return of the exhibits where they were tainted with illegality - The court also would not have returned any of the seized items under s. 24(1) of the Charter - Returning the items would offend the principles embodied in the maxims "ex dolo malo non oritur actio" and "ex turpi causa" - See paragraphs 94 to 129 and 160 to 175.

Criminal Law - Topic 5578

Evidence and witnesses - Exhibits - Release or return of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3170 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hitchings (E.L.) (1997), 158 Sask.R. 254; 153 W.A.C. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Fitt (S.E.) (1995), 139 N.S.R. 186; 397 A.P.R. 186; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 341 (C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

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. 21].

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. 22].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 22].

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. 22].

R. v. Belliveau and Losier (1986), 75 N.B.R.(2d) 18; 188 A.P.R. 18; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 163 (C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Shea (1983), 1 C.C.C.(3d) 316 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Askov (1987), 60 C.R.(3d) 261 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Longtin (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 12 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Nielsen (1988), 66 Sask.R. 293; 43 C.C.C.(3d) 548 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Dreysko (1990), 110 A.R. 317 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Grenier (D.); R. v. Grenier (M.-P.) (1991), 51 Q.A.C. 283; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Sanchez-Ruiz (1991), 121 N.B.R.(2d) 106; 304 A.P.R. 106; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 500 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Kouyas (S.) (1994), 136 N.S.R.(2d) 195; 388 A.P.R. 195 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 70; 192 N.R. 36; 148 N.S.R.(2d) 159; 429 A.P.R. 159; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 224, consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Fitt (S.E.) (1995), 139 N.S.R.(2d) 186; 397 A.P.R. 186; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 341 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 70; 192 N.R. 38; 148 N.S.R.(2d) 399; 429 A.P.R. 399; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 224, consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Geradin, [1999] N.J. No. 284 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Pardy, [1999] N.J. No. 283 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Robere (L.J.) (1999), 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 292; 550 A.P.R. 292 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Texas v. Brown (1983), 75 L. Ed. 2d 502, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 44].

Coolidge v. N.H. (1971), 403 U.S. 443; 29 L. Ed. 2d 564; 91 S. Ct. 2022, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto et al. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 321; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Lauda (J.M.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 683; 232 N.R. 1; 115 O.A.C. 293; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 57].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, consd. [para. 69].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, consd. [para. 69].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, consd. [para. 69].

Iorfida v. McIntyre (1994), 21 O.R.(3d) 186 (Ont. Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 73].

R. v. Ramji et al. (1989), 103 A.R. 23 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 74].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 90; 17 C.R.(4th) 74, ad­dendum 147 N.R. 335, refd to. [para. 78].

Hoffman Estates (Village) v. Flipside Hoffman Estates Inc. (1982), 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Biller (V.K.) et al. (1999), 177 Sask.R. 161; 199 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 348; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Stelling, [1979] 2 W.W.R. 759 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 116].

Re Major and A.G.B.C. et al. (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 162 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Kinney (1985), 15 C.C.C.(3d) 343 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 116, foot­note 2].

R. v. Sirucek (V.) (1995), 175 A.R. 280 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto et al. (1991), 49 O.A.C. 13; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 328 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1991), 137 N.R. 386; 55 O.A.C. 394; 67 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 123].

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. 141].

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, refd to. [para. 145].

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. 145].

Holman v. Johnson (1775), 98 E.R. 1120, refd to. [para. 170].

Letkeman v. Zimmermann, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 408 (Sask. C.A.), revsd. [1977] 6 W.W.R. 741; 17 N.R. 564 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 170].

Gombash Estate v. R., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 415; 66 N.R. 133; 15 O.A.C. 159; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 297, refd to. [para. 170].

Fleming v. The Queen - see Gombash Estate v. R.

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 462.2 [para. 2]; sect. 490(9) [para. 95].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, E.G. Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed.), p. 3:1560 [paras. 116, 125].

Fontana, The Law of Search and Seizure in Canada (3rd Ed.), p. 602 [para. 25].

Gersten, Steven E., Drug Paraphernalia: Illustrative of the Need for Federal-State Cooperation in Law Enforcement in an Era of New Federalism (1997), 26 Southwestern Law Review, pp. 1122, 1123 [Appendix A].

Quigley, T., Procedure in Canadian Crimi­nal Law (1997), p. 60-1 [para. 22].

Counsel:

Alan Young, for the appellant/respondent;

Graeme Mitchell, Q.C., for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on April 3, 2001, before Bayda, C.J.S., Cameron and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on April 27, 2001, including the following opinions:

Jackson, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 130;

Cameron, J.A. (Bayda, C.J.S., con­curring) - see paragraphs 131 to 175.