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 of Canada
Case Date:November 05, 1992
Jurisdiction:Canada (Federal)
Citations:(1993), 158 N.R. 321 (SCC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

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

FREE SIGN UP