R. v. Steele (R.M.A.), 2015 ONCA 169

• Judge: Feldman, Simmons and Pardu, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 13, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2015 ONCA 169;(2015), 330 O.A.C. 352 (CA)

R. v. Steele (R.M.A.) (2015), 330 O.A.C. 352 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.021

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Richard Martin Ashbourne Steele (appellant)

(C53511; 2015 ONCA 169)

Indexed As: R. v. Steele (R.M.A.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Feldman, Simmons and Pardu, JJ.A.

March 16, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of possessing a loaded, prohibited, semi-automatic firearm. He appealed, asserting that, inter alia, the gun should have been excluded from evidence as it was found through an unreasonable search that contravened his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - Richard Steele was the front seat passenger in a car driven by White - A police officer pulled the vehicle over to check for proper documentation and driver sobriety - The car was registered to Valerie Steele (Richard's mother) - White told the officer that he had borrowed the car from a friend's mother without disclosing that the friend was Richard - White seemed flustered and produced several expired insurance pink slips and could not produce a driver's licence - White agreed to the officer assisting him to find a valid insurance slip - Richard exited the vehicle - The officer went to the passenger side and looked in the glove box without success - As she was finishing, she saw in plain view part of the black butt and silver barrel of a gun under the front passenger seat - Richard was convicted of possessing a loaded, prohibited, semi-automatic firearm - He appealed, asserting that the gun should have been excluded from evidence as it was found through an unreasonable search that contravened his s. 8 Charter rights - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Richard did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle - He did not identify himself as a person to whom the car had been loaned and he did not disclose his connection to the vehicle's owner - The officer had no basis to believe that he had any connection to the vehicle other than as a passenger - Moreover, White had apparent control - The court also affirmed the trial judge's alternative finding that even if there had been a Charter breach, the evidence would have been admitted - The officer acted in good faith - The societal interest in a trial on the merits was substantial - The gun was highly reliable and probative evidence unaffected by any Charter breach - See paragraphs 13 to 21, 29 and 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - The accused was convicted of possessing a loaded, prohibited, semi-automatic firearm - He appealed, asserting that, inter alia, the gun should have been excluded from evidence as it was found through an unreasonable search that contravened his s. 8 Charter rights - He further asserted that the search was not authorized by law - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that given its conclusion that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car, there was no "search" within the meaning of s. 8 - It was therefore unnecessary to determine if the police conduct was unreasonable and violated s. 8 - However, the court noted that to establish the reasonableness of the search, the Crown had to establish that the search was authorized by law, the authorizing law was reasonable, and the authority to conduct the search was exercised reasonably - Here, there was no statutory authority permitting the search of vehicle for proof of insurance - See paragraphs 22 and 23.

Civil Rights - Topic 1651

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

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

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Harrison (B.). [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358; 2009 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cole (R.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 34; 436 N.R. 102; 297 O.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. MacDonald (E.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 37; 453 N.R. 1; 341 N.S.R.(2d) 353; 1081 A.P.R. 353; 2014 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Nolet (R.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 851; 403 N.R. 1; 350 Sask.R. 51; 487 W.A.C. 51; 2010 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 1].

R. v. Brown (D.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 131; 64 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Mayuran (S.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 162; 431 N.R. 232; 2012 SCC 31, refd to. [paras. 21, 34].

R. v. Wills (B.) (2014), 318 O.A.C. 99; 308 C.C.C.(3d) 109; 2014 ONCA 178, affd. (2014), 465 N.R. 301; 2014 SCC 73, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

Anthony Moustacalis and Selwyn Pieters, for the appellant;

J. Sandy Tse, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 13, 2015, by Feldman, Simmons and Pardu, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Pardu, J.A., released the following judgment for the court on March 16, 2015.