R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), (1997) 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC);[1997] 1 SCR 607;1997 CanLII 384 (SCC);185 NBR (2d) 1;144 DLR (4th) 193;113 CCC (3d) 321;5 CR (5th) 1;209 NR 81;[1997] CarswellNB 107;AZ-97111034;JE 97-704;[1997] SCJ No 34 (QL);[1997] ACS no 34;33 WCB (2d) 490;42 CRR (2d) 189;472 APR 1

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.) (1997), 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC);

    185 R.N.-B.(2e) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

William Wayne Dale Stillman (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, the Attorney General for Alberta, the Law Union of Ontario, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense (interveners)

(24631)

Indexed As: R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

March 20, 1997.

Summary:

An accused appealed his conviction for first degree murder, asserting that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of hair samples, buccal swabs, teeth impressions and mucus samples taken by the police without the accused's consent in contravention of his Charter rights.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Rice, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 159 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 409 A.P.R. 321, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court ordered that the hair samples, dental impres­sions and buccal swabs were to be excluded from evidence. The mucous sample was admissible. Major, J., dissented in part. McLachlin, L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., dissented.

Civil Rights - Topic 1214

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Searches incidental to arrest or detention - Police arrested an accused youth suspected of murder - The accused announced through his lawyers that he would not consent to the taking of any bodily samples - During the five day detention, the police seized a discarded tissue which the accused had used to blow his nose - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the seizure of the tissue violated the ac­cused's s. 8 Charter right to be secure from unreasonable search and sei­zure - See paragraphs 52 to 63 - How­ever, the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute - The violation was not serious - The seizure did not interfere with the accused's bodily integrity, nor cause him any loss of dignity - The tissue would have been discovered in any event - See paragraph 128.

Civil Rights - Topic 1214

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Searches incidental to arrest or detention - Police arrested an accused youth suspected of murder - The accused announced through his lawyers that he would not consent to the taking of any bodily samples - After the accused's law­yers had left, a police officer took samples of the accused's hair by running his gloved hand over the accused's scalp and by clip­ping and pulling - The accused was made to pull hair from his pubic area - A dentist took teeth impressions and buccal swabs - The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the accused's s. 8 Charter right to be secure from unreasonable search and sei­zure was violated - The search and seizure was not authorized by either statute or common law and, accordingly, was not reasonable - See paragraphs 25 to 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 1215

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Prisoners - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[o]bviously an accused person will have a lower ex­pectation of privacy following his or her arrest and subsequent custody. That expec­tation of privacy will be even lower when serving a sentence after conviction. There­fore, it may well be that certain kinds of searches and seizures may validly be per­formed on a person in custody which could not validly be performed on persons who have not yet been arrested or convicted. ... The privacy expectation should not be reduced to such an extent as to justify seizures of bodily samples without consent, particularly for those who are detained while they are still presumed to be inno­cent." - See paragraph 61.

Civil Rights - Topic 1215

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Prisoners - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... where an accused who is not in custody discards a kleenex or cigarette butt, the police may ordinarily collect and test these items without any concern about consent. A different situation is presented when an accused in custody discards items contain­ing bodily fluids. Obviously an accused in custody cannot prevent the authorities from taking possession of these items. Whether the circumstances were such that the accused had abandoned the items and relinquished any privacy interest in them will have to be determined on the particu­lar facts presented in each case." - See paragraph 62.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - What constitutes unreason­able search and seizure - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1214 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.2

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Hair and bodily fluid samples (incl. saliva) - Police arrested an accused youth suspected of murder - The accused announced through his lawyers that he would not consent to the taking of any bodily samples - After the accused's law­yers had left, a police officer took samples of the accused's scalp hair by running his gloved hand over the accused's scalp and by clipping and pulling - The accused was then made to pull hair from his pubic area - A dentist took teeth impressions and buccal swabs - The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the taking of the samples without authorization violated the accused s. 7 Charter right to security of the person and contravened the principles of fundamental justice - See paragraph 51.

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.2

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Hair and bodily fluid samples (incl. saliva) - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1214 and both Civil Rights - Topic 1215 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1441

Security of the person - Right to privacy -General - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1215 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the approach that should be taken when the trial fairness factor is being considered in applying s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 72 to 119 - The court summarized the approach as follows: "1. Classify the evidence as conscriptive or non-conscriptive based upon the manner in which the evidence was obtained. If the evidence is non -conscriptive, its admission will not render the trial unfair and the court will proceed to consider the serious­ness of the breach and the effect of exclu­sion on the repute of the administration of justice. 2. If the evidence is conscriptive and the Crown fails to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the evidence would have been discovered by alternative non-conscriptive means, then its admission will render the trial unfair. The Court, as a general rule, will exclude the evidence without considering the seriousness of the breach or the effect of exclusion on the repute of the administration of justice. This must be the result since an unfair trial would necessarily bring the administration of justice into disrepute. 3. If the evidence is found to be conscriptive and the Crown demonstrates on a balance of probabilities that it would have been discovered by alternative non-conscriptive means, then its admission will generally not render the trial unfair. However, the seriousness of the Charter breach and the effect of exclu­sion on the repute of the administration of justice will have to be considered." - See paragraph 119.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - An accused youth, arrested for murder, announced through his lawyers that he would not consent to the taking of bodily samples - After his lawyers left, the police took bodily samples in violation of his ss. 7 and 8 Charter rights - The Supreme Court of Canada held the evi­dence would not have been discoverable without the conscription of the accused in violation of the Charter and, accordingly, its admission would render the trial unfair - The court referred to the seriousness of the violations, stating that as reprehensible as the police actions were in themselves, they were intolerable where the police were aware that the accused was then a young offender and entitled to special protection under the Young Offenders Act - The conduct of the police would shock the conscience of all fair minded members of the community - See paragraphs 67 to 127.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1214 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3147

Special powers - Power of search - Search incidental to arrest - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the scope of the common law power of search incidental to arrest and concluded that it did not extend to the seizure of bodily substances - See paragraphs 33 to 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 3148

Special powers - Power of search - Scope of power - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3147 ].

Police - Topic 3024

Powers - Common law - Scope of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3147 ].

Police - Topic 3185

Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3147 ].

Prisons - Topic 1115

Administration - Prisoners' rights - Pri­vacy - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1215 ].

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. 14].

R. v. Legere (1988), 89 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 226 A.P.R. 361 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 22].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 1; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny (1985), 8 O.A.C. 31; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, dist. [para. 30].

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. 33].

Leigh v. Cole (1853), 6 Cox C.C. 329, refd to. [para. 33].

Bessell v. Wilson (1853), 1 E. & B. 489; 118 E.R. 518 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Lim (1990), 1 C.R.R.(2d) 136 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Speid (1991), 8 C.R.R.(2d) 383 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1992] 1 S.C.R. xi; 139 N.R. 160; 55 O.A.C. 391, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Smellie (S.A.) (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 202; 87 W.A.C. 202; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 9 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1995] 2 S.C.R. xi; 191 N.R. 396; 65 B.C.A.C. 80; 106 W.A.C. 80, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 3; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Alderton (1985), 7 O.A.C. 121; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Paul (J.D.) (1994), 155 N.B.R.(2d) 195; 398 A.P.R. 195 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 41].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 42].

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. 42].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296; 38 C.R.R. 252; 18 C.E.R. 227; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 45].

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. 46].

R. v. LeBlanc (1981), 36 N.B.R.(2d) 675; 94 A.P.R. 675; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 31 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Love (R.J.), [1994] A.J. No. 847 (Q.B.), affd. (1995), 174 A.R. 360; 120 W.A.C. 360; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 393 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Arp, [1995] B.C.J. No. 882 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Legere (A.J.) (1994), 156 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 401 A.P.R. 321; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 78].

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. 79].

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. 79].

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. 79].

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. 79].

Schmerber v. California (1966), 384 U.S. 757 (S.C.), not folld. [para. 84].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 67 C.R.(3d) 209; 37 C.R.R. 369, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 58 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Wijesinha (W.K.K.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 422; 186 N.R. 169; 85 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 70 C.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 171, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Harper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 343; 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 116].

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. 118].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 121].

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, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Garcia (M.) (1992), 44 Q.A.C. 282; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Lerke (1986), 67 A.R. 390; 49 C.R.(3d) 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Morrison (1987), 20 O.A.C. 230; 58 C.R.(3d) 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Miller (1987), 23 O.A.C. 32; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Debot (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 54 C.R.(3d) 120 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1 refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Schweir, [1993] O.J. No. 3404 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 148].

R. v. Morin (1995), 37 C.R.(4th) 395 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 150].

United States v. Weir (1981), 657 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 151].

Ewing v. State (1974), 310 N.E.2d 571 (Ind.), refd to. [para. 151].

Spence v. State (1990), 795 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

State v. Cobb (1978), 243 S.E.2d 759 (N.C.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Brezack (1949), 96 C.C.C. 97 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].

Reynen v. Antonenko (1975), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 342 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 154].

Scott v. Canada, Siddle and Blaney (1975), 12 N.R. 477; 24 C.C.C.(2d) 261 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 154].

R. v. Truchanek (1984), 39 C.R.(3d) 137 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 154].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 156].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 160].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 160].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 197].

R. v. Marcoux, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 763; 4 N.R. 64, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Hogan, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 574; 2 N.R. 343; 9 N.S.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 201].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Bégin, [1955] S.C.R. 593, refd to. [para. 201].

Reference Re Validity of Section 92(4) of the Vehicles Act 1957 (Sask.), [1958] S.C.R. 608, refd to. [para. 201].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 202].

Holt v. United States (1910), 218 U.S. 245, refd to. [para. 205].

King v. McLellan, [1974] V.R. 773 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 213].

Sorby v. Australia (1983), 152 C.L.R. 281, refd to. [para. 215].

Howard v. Bates (1994), 72 A. Crim. R. 96 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 215].

Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v. R., [1955] A.C. 197 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 218].

Adair v. M'Garry, [1933] S.L.T. 482 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 220].

R. v. Buckingham (1943), 86 C.C.C. 76 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 220].

R. v. Hayward (1957), 118 C.C.C. 365 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 220].

R. v. A.N. (1977), 40 C.R.N.S. 144 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 220].

R. v. McLarty (No. 2) (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 72 (Ont. Ct. G.S.P.), refd to. [para. 220].

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; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 243].

R. v. Sieben, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 295; 74 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 243].

R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301; 75 N.R. 149, refd to. [para. 243].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 243].

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. 246].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 8 C.R.R.(2d) 274; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 289; 9 C.R.(4th) 1; 84 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 308, refd to. [para. 246].

R. v. Terry (R.S.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; 197 N.R. 105; 76 B.C.A.C. 25; 125 W.A.C. 25, refd to. [para. 257].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [para. 260].

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81; 76 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 385; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 260].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 24(2) [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archibald, Bruce P., The Law of Arrest, in Criminal Procedure in Canada (1982), pp. 157, 158 [para. 148].

Béliveau, Pierre, Bellemare, Jacques, and Lussier, Jean-Pierre, On Criminal Pro­cedure (1982), p. 200 [para. 148].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, June 22, 1995, vol. 133, No. 224, 1st Sess., 35th Parl., p. 14,489 [para. 155].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Report No. 25, Obtaining Forensic Evidence (1985), p. 12 [para. 155].

Chayko, G.M., Gulliver, E.D., and Macdougall, D.V., Forensic Evidence in Canada (1991), pp. 302 to 305 [para. 150]; 377 [para. 152].

Cohen, Stanley A., Search Incident to Arrest (1989-90), 32 Crim L.Q. 366, pp. 374 [para. 162]; 375 [paras. 159, 162]; 376 [para. 162], 377 [paras. 159, 162]; 378 [para. 162].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Herman, Lawrence, The Unexplored Rela­tionship Between the Privilege Against Compulsory Self-Incrimination and the Involuntary Confession Rule (Part I) (1992), 53 Ohio St. L.J. 101, generally [para. 200].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), p. 1029 [para. 197].

LaFave, Wayne R., Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3rd Ed. 1996), vol. 3, pp. 130, 131 [para. 162]; 132, 133, 134 [paras. 151, 162]; 135 to 141 [para. 162].

Mitchell, Gerard E., Supreme Court of Canada on the Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases under Section 24(2) of the Charter (1987-88), 30 Crim. L.Q. 165, p. 175 [para. 240].

Paciocco, David M., Judicial Repeal of s. 24(2) and the Development of the Cana­dian Exclusionary Rule (1989-90), 32 Crim. L.Q. 326, p. 354 [para. 239].

Paciocco, David M., Self-Incrimination: Removing the Coffin Nails (1989), 35 McGill L.J. 73, pp. 77 [para. 201]; 85, 86 [para. 201]; 87 [para. 202]; 88 [para. 203].

Salhany, Roger E., Canadian Criminal Procedure (6th Ed. 1994 (looseleaf 1996)), para. 3.50 [para. 142].

Salhany, Roger E., Police Manual of Arrest, Seizure & Interrogation (6th Ed. 1994), p. 75 [para. 148].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th Ed. 1992), generally [para. 248].

Stuart, Don, Burlingham and Silveira: New Charter Standards to Control Police Manipulaion and Exclusion of Evidence (1995), 38 C.R.(4th) 386, p. 395 [para. 191].

Stuart, Don, Questioning the Discover­ability Doctrine in Section 24(2) Rulings (1996), 48 C.R.(4th) 351, pp. 355, 356 [para. 191].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (3rd Ed. McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, § 2263, pp. 378, 379 [paras. 206, 213]; § 2265, pp. 386 et seq. [para. 207].

Counsel:

J.C. Marc Richard and Christa A. Bourque, for the appellant;

Graham J. Sleeth, Q.C., and John J. Walsh, for the respondent;

S.R. Fainstein, Q.C., and George Dolhai, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Renee M. Pomerance, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jacques Gauvin, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

William D. Delaney, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

William F. Ehrcke, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Graeme G. Mitchell, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Jack Watson, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Michael Code, for the intervener, the Law Union of Ontario;

Kent Roach, for the intervener, the Cana­dian Civil Liberties Association;

Scott K. Fenton, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Guy Cournoyer, for the intervener, the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense.

Solicitors of Record:

Barry & O'Neil, Saint John, New Bruns­wick, for the appellant;

The Department of Justice, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the respondent;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

The Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Department of Justice, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

The Department of Justice, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

The Department of Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Law Union of Ontario;

Kent, Roach, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Fasken Campbell Godfrey, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Poupart & Cournoyer, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense.

This appeal was heard on November 7, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On March 20, 1997, the judgment of the court was rendered in both official languages and the following opin­ions were filed:

Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 129;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraph 130 to 192;

Gonthier, J., dissenting - see paragraph 193;

McLachlin, J, dissenting - see para­graphs 194 to 272;

Major, J, dissenting in part - see para­graphs 273 to 279.