R. v. Wise, (1992) 133 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 25, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 133 N.R. 161 (SCC);[1992] SCJ No 16 (QL);51 OAC 351;133 NR 161;AZ-92111036;[1992] 1 SCR 527;1992 CanLII 125 (SCC);[1992] ACS no 16;70 CCC (3d) 193;8 CRR (2d) 53;JE 92-354;15 WCB (2d) 158;11 CR (4th) 253

R. v. Wise (1992), 133 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

James Henry Wise (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(No. 22050)

Indexed As: R. v. Wise

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.

February 27, 1992.

Summary:

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of mischief. The issue on appeal was whether the admitted denial of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights should result in the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 40 O.A.C. 102, allowed the appeal. The court held that the evidence should not be excluded, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Sopinka, Iacobucci and La Forest, JJ.A., dissenting, dis­missed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - Expectation of privacy - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle - See paragraphs 4 to 6, 80 to 91 - The court stated that "although there remains an expectation of privacy in automobile travel, it is markedly decreased relative to the expectation of privacy in one's home or office" - See paragraph 6.

Civil Rights - Topic 1607

Property - Search warrants - Standard for authorization - Electronic monitoring of vehicles - Cory, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... it would be pre­ferable if the installation of tracking devices and the subsequent monitoring of vehicles were controlled by legislation. I would also agree that this is a less intru­sive means of surveillance than electronic audio or video surveillance. Accordingly a lower standard such as a 'solid ground' for suspicion would be a basis for obtaining an authorization from an independent authority, such as a justice of the peace, to install a device and monitor movements of a vehicle" - See paragraph 47.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unrea­sonable search and seizure defined - Dur­ing investigation of several murders police obtained a warrant to search a suspect's car - The police installed a vehicle track­ing device (i.e., a "beeper") in the car and returned the vehicle to the accused - Dur­ing a subsequent criminal trial, the Crown conceded that installation of the device contravened s. 8 of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that not only the installation of the device, but the monitoring of the accused constituted an unreasonable search contrary to s. 8.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - During a murder investigation, the police obtained a warrant to search a suspect's car - During the search the police installed a tracking device (i.e., a "beeper") - Police used the beeper to follow the car's movements - This gave rise to a second search of the vehicle - During the second search metal pieces were found linking the accused to a tower collapse which led to a mischief charge - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the installation of the device and monitoring constituted an unreasonable search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter; however, the evidence respecting the loca­tion of the vehicle and the metal pieces was admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that in considering the admissibility of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, one of the factors to be con­sidered is the effect of admission on the fairness of the trial - The court stated that "the admission of real evidence obtained as a result of a Charter violation will rarely result in a finding of unfairness. However, the admission of evidence obtained by conscripting the accused against himself, such as a confession, will generally render the trial unfair" - See paragraph 24 - The court thereafter dis­cussed the difference between "real" and "conscriptive" evi­dence - See paragraphs 25 to 31.

Police - Topic 3183

Powers - Search - Electronic surveil­lance - Beepers - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Cases Noticed:

United States v. Knotts (1983), 460 U.S. 276, refd to. [paras. 13, 82-84].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 21, 34, 100, 103].

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, appld. [para. 23 et seq.].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, refd to. [paras. 25, 92].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35, refd to. [paras. 25, 96].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 58 C.R.(3d) 97; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 26, 96].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [paras. 29, 96].

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. 32].

R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 34, 73 et seq.].

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

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, refd to. [paras. 34, 88].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, dist. [paras. 41, 50, 71, 78, 99-105].

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. [paras. 71, 77, 88, 89, 103].

R. v. Moran (1987), 21 O.A.C. 257; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 71 et seq.].

Cardwell v. Lewis (1974), 417 U.S. 583, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 72].

Olmstead v. United States (1928), 277 U.S. 438, refd to. [para. 105].

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, refd to. [para. 105].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 2 et seq.]; sect. 10(b) [paras. 26, 44]; sect. 24(2) [para. 2 et seq.].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 387(3) [para. 54].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 430(3) [para. 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gutterman, Malvin, A Formulation of the Value and Means Models of the Fourth Amendment in the Age of Technologi­cally Enhanced Surveillance (1988), 39 Syracuse L. Rev. 647, pp. 706 [paras. 75, 87]; 707 [para. 87].

Profiles: The Constitutionalist, The New Yorker (March 12, 1990), p. 65 [para. 90].

Counsel:

J. Bruce Carr-Harris and Carole J. Brown, for the appellant;

Susan Chapman, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Scott & Aylen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 25, 1991, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on February 27, 1992, including the following opinions:

Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier and Stevenson, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 48;

Sopinka, J., dissenting (Iacobucci, J., con­curring) - see paragraphs 49 to 52;

La Forest, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 53 to 107.