R. v. Wiley (R.W.), (1993) 158 N.R. 321 (SCC)
Judge | Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | November 05, 1992 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1993), 158 N.R. 321 (SCC);20 WCB (2d) 592;84 CCC (3d) 161;34 BCAC 135;[1993] 3 SCR 263;17 CRR (2d) 314;54 WAC 135;[1993] SCJ No 96 (QL);158 NR 321;JE 93-1671;[1993] ACS no 96;1993 CanLII 69 (SCC);24 CR (4th) 34 |
R. v. Wiley (R.W.) (1993), 158 N.R. 321 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Robert Wallace Wiley (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and David Angelo Grant (intervener)
(No. 22804)
Indexed As: R. v. Wiley (R.W.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
September 30, 1993.
Summary:
The accused was charged with cultivating marijuana. The trial judge excluded Crown evidence and dismissed the case. The Crown appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 9 B.C.A.C. 271; 19 W.A.C. 271, allowed the appeal and directed a new trial. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights - Topic 1604
Property - Search warrants - Validity of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3097 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 1646
Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3097 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 1646
Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - Police, acting on information from a reliable source that the accused was cultivating marijuana, conducted a warrantless perimeter search - Then they obtained a search warrant and found marijuana plants - The British Columbia Court of Appeal declined to exclude the evidence, holding that the case was distinguishable from R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207, and that the officers acted in good faith, having reasonable grounds to believe perimeter searches were lawful - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - See paragraphs 30 to 31.
Civil Rights - Topic 1654
Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Perimeter search - Section 10 of the Narcotic Control Act authorized a warrantless search of a place other than a dwelling house - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 10 "is only constitutionally applicable to warrantless searches in situations where exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain prior judicial authorization" - See paragraph 17.
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - A reliable informant informed police that marijuana was grown at the accused's residence - Police conducted a warrantless perimeter search - Police obtained a search warrant based partly on facts obtained during the perimeter search - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the perimeter search violated s. 8 of the Charter - The search warrant was valid, where the balance of the information in support constituted reasonable grounds - The evidence obtained from the search should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, where police acted in good faith and in reliance on the prevailing law at the time that warrantless perimeter searches were valid.
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police conducted a warrantless perimeter search of the accused's house, although they had reliable information and had reasonable grounds for obtaining a warrant - The British Columbia Court of Appeal declined to exclude the evidence, holding that the police acted in good faith and reasonably believed that perimeter search was permitted and the evidence was real and essential to establishing the occurrence of the offences - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision - See paragraphs 30 to 31.
Civil Rights - Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Police obtained a search warrant based partly on information obtained during a warrantless perimeter search - The perimeter search violated s. 8 of the Charter - However, the warrant and the search and seizures conducted under it were valid, where the balance of the information in support of the warrant constituted reasonable grounds - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there was a sufficient temporal connection between the evidence ultimately unearthed and the warrantless perimeter search to trigger operation of s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraph 28.
Criminal Law - Topic 3097
Search warrants - Issue of - Contents of information for issue of - Police received tips from a reliable informant that marijuana was grown at the accused's residence - Police conducted a warrantless perimeter search - A search warrant was issued in reliance on the informant's tips, police observations made during reconnaissance, police enquiries at the station regarding the ownership of the house, and police observations made during the warrantless perimeter search - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, excluding information obtained during the perimeter search because it violated s. 8 of the Charter, the balance of the information in support of the warrant constituted reasonable grounds - Accordingly, the search warrant and the search and seizures conducted under it were valid - See paragraphs 18 to 27.
Narcotic Control - Topic 2065
Search and seizure - Warrantless searches - Perimeter search - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1654 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Plant (R.S.) (1993), 157 N.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Grant (D.) (1993), 159 N.R. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
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; reving. 46 C.C.C.(3d) 194 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].
R. v. Plant (1991), 116 A.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].
R. v. Collins (1989), 32 O.A.C. 296; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
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. 16].
R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Duguay, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 29].
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. 29].
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(2), sect. 6(1) [para. 2]; sect. 10, sect. 12 [para. 14].
Counsel:
Greg Cranston and Claire Ducluzeau, for the appellant;
S. David Frankel, Q.C., for the respondent;
David M. Rosenberg, for the intervener.
Solicitors of Record:
Cranston & Co., Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;
John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;
Rosenberg & Rosenberg, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener.
This appeal was heard on November 5, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered by Sopinka, J., on September 30, 1993.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Russell (M.C.) et al., (1999) 24 B.C.T.C. 321 (SC)
...18]. R. v. Hiscock (G.); R. v. Sauvé (P.) (1992), 46 Q.A.C. 263; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19]. 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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B......
-
R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2003] B.C.T.C. 859 (SC)
...[1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 260]. 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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 267]. R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. ......
-
R. v. Campbell,
...Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 21]. R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 21]. 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. 21]. R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C......
-
Mitchell v. R.,
...[para. 39]. 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. 39]. 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. R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.......
-
R. v. Russell (M.C.) et al., (1999) 24 B.C.T.C. 321 (SC)
...18]. R. v. Hiscock (G.); R. v. Sauvé (P.) (1992), 46 Q.A.C. 263; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19]. 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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B......
-
R. v. Wilder (D.M.), [2003] B.C.T.C. 859 (SC)
...[1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 260]. 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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 267]. R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. ......
-
R. v. Sanche (W.), (2003) 334 A.R. 39 (PC)
...et al. (2000), 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52]. 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; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 53]. R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; ......
-
R. v. Rochat (R.R.), (1999) 241 A.R. 201 (ProvCt)
...moved on to consider the seriousness of the violation. See also: R. v. Grant , [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173; R. v. Wiley , [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, and R. v. Plant , [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 203. " Conscriptive Evidence "Evidence will be conscriptive when ......
-
Federal Court Of Appeal Eliminates Commissioner Of Competition's Public Interest' Class Privilege
...authority: at para. 75. 9 At paras. 53, 56-57, citing Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8, National Post, R. v. Gruenke, 1991 3 S.C.R. 263, Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Harkat, 2014 SCC 37, and 10 At paras. 56-57, 62. 11 At paras. 78-81. 12 At para. 46, citing National ......
-
Search and Seizure
...“impracticable” to obtain a warrant. 165 The “impracticability” standard is a high one: it 158 Grant 1993, above note 156; R v Wiley , [1993] 3 SCR 263 [ Wiley ]; R v Rao (1984), 40 CR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [ Rao ]; R v D(ID) (1987), 61 CR (3d) 292 (Sask CA) [ D(ID) ]. 159 See s 487.11 of the Cod......
-
Table of cases
...946 APR 334 ...................... 206 R v Whittle, [1994] 2 SCR 914, 92 CCC (3d) 11, [1994] SCJ No 69 .......... 428, 429 R v Wiley, [1993] 3 SCR 263, 84 CCC (3d) 161, [1993] SCJ No 96 .... 113, 151, 181 R v Williams (1987), 2 YR 299, 38 CCC (3d) 319, [1987] YJ No 1741 (CA) .......177 R v ......
-
Table of Cases
...117 R. v. Wijesinha, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 422, 127 D.L.R. (4th) 242, 100 C.C.C. (3d) 410 .... 28 R. v. Wiley, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263, 84 C.C.C. (3d) 161 ............................................66, 68 R. v. Williams (a.k.a. Buckshot) (2003), 180 O.A.C. 171, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 414 (C.A.) .................
-
Table of cases
......... 195, 196–97, 202, 203, 205, 209 R v Whittle, [1994] 2 SCR 914, 92 CCC (3d) 11, [1994] SCJ No 69 ................. 348 R v Wiley, [1993] 3 SCR 263, 84 CCC (3d) 161, 1993 CanLII 69 ............. 120, 121 R v Wilkinson, 2023 BCCA 3 .............................................................