S.F. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (1997) 47 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

• Judge: Hill, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: Wednesday October 08, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 47 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

S.F. v. Can. (A.G.) (1997), 47 O.T.C. 321 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.T.C. TBEd. OC.118

F.(S.) applicant v. The Attorney General for Canada and The Attorney General for Ontario (respondents)

(Court File No. CRIMJ(P) 700/96)

Indexed As: S.F. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Central West Region

Hill, J.

October 9, 1997.

Summary:

The accused was charged with sexual assault. A search warrant was issued under s. 487.05 of the Criminal Code (DNA warrant) for the seizure of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis. Section 487.06(1) permitted the seizure of (a) hairs, including the root sheath, (b) epithelial cells or (c) blood. The accused applied for a declaration that ss. 487.04 to 487.09 of the Code authorizing the issuance and execution of "DNA warrants" were inconsistent with ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter and, to the extent of any inconsistency, were of no force and effect. The accused alleged that the legislation violated s. 8 (right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure) because 1) the reasonable grounds standard for issuance of a DNA warrant, authorizing interference with bodily integrity, was too low and 2) the legislation contained no minimum compliance standard (offsetting the use of force to seize a biological sample). The accused alleged that the legislation violated s. 7 (right to life, liberty and security of the person) because it infringed his right against self-incrimination and his right to procedural fairness. The accused argued that procedural fairness was violated because 1) Parliament failed to legislate national laboratory and analyst accreditation standards and 2) the DNA forensic testing regime failed to provide a funded independent testing right.

The Ontario Court (General Division) held that the taking of hair samples violated s. 8 of the Charter because five to 10% of the population were biologically unable to provide a root sheath, which was required for DNA analysis. The court otherwise upheld the validity of the legislation under the Charter. The court vacated the interim stay of execution of the warrant which had been in place pending disposition of the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - See paragraphs 35 to 137.

Civil Rights - Topic 1403

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Search warrants - See paragraphs 1 to 195.

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.2

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Hair and bodily fluid samples - See paragraphs 1 to 195.

Civil Rights - Topic 4385

Protection against self-incrimination - Incriminating conditions of the body - DNA warrant - See paragraphs 138 to 161.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Severance of portion of statute or section - See paragraph 137.

Cases Noticed:

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; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Beamish (D.L.) (1996), 144 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 338; 451 A.P.R. 338 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 2]].

R. v. Hutchinson (1995), 98 C.C.C.(3d) 221 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 2].

R. v. Morin (1995), 37 C.R.(4th) 395 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 3].

R. v. Bourguignon (C.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 3].

R. v. Baptiste (V.M.) (1994), 51 B.C.A.C. 31; 84 W.A.C. 31; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 3].

R. v. Legere (A.J.) (1995), 156 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 401 A.P.R. 321; 35 C.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 3].

R. v. Love (R.J.) (1995), 174 A.R. 360; 102 W.A.C. 360; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 393 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1996), 203 N.R. 390; 193 A.R. 79; 105 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.) refd to. [para. 23, footnote 3].

R. v. Kelt (Stephen), [1994] 2 All E.R. 780 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 3].

R. v. Cooke (1995), 1 Cr. App. R. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 3].

R. v. Morin (1988), 21 O.A.C. 38; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 4].

R. v. Su (1988), 28 O.A.C. 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 4].

United States v. Yee et al. (1991), 134 F.R.D. 161 (N.D. Ohio), p. 214 [para. 24, footnote 5].

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. 41].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 47].

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; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 56].

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; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 56, 149].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 4 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 8].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 8].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 403, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 61 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 16].

R. v. Jones (S.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 16].

R. v. Finlay and Grellette (1985), 11 O.A.C. 279; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67, footnote 16].

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. [para. 69].

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. 72, footnote 17].

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; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 72, footnote 18].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 72].

MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) and Grainger and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 129; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Land (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 382 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 22].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270: 78 C.C.C.(3d) 510, refd to. [para. 87].

Société Radio-Canada v. Nouveau-Brunswick (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 459; 130 N.R. 362; 119 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 300 A.P.R. 271; 85 D.L.R.(4th) 57; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 544, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Lyons, Prevedoros and McGuire, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633; 56 N.R. 6; 58 A.R. 2; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 482, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Cluett, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 216; 61 N.R. 388; 70 N.S.R.(2d) 104; 166 A.P.R. 104; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 318, 21 D.L.R.(4th) 306, refd to. [para. 106].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 46 C.R.R. 37, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Knox (W.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 199; 202 N.R. 228; 109 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Brighteyes (R.J.) (1997), 199 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161; 36 C.R.(4th) 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 28].

R. v. M.B.P., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555; 165 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 161; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 461; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 29 C.R.(4th) 209; 21 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 28].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 145, footnote 28].

R. v. Fitzpatrick (B.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 154; 188 N.R. 248; 65 B.C.A.C. 1; 106 W.A.C. 1; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 144, refd to. [para. 148, footnote 29].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 148, footnote 29].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321; 25 C.R.(4th) 325; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 327; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 148, footnote 29].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 492; 20 C.R.(4th) 57; 11 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 234, refd to. [para. 148, footnote 29].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 148, footnote 29].

R. v. Milne (R.S.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 348; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 118 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1996] 3 S.C.R. xiii, refd to. [para. 157].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 68 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 159].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, refd to. [para. 161].

Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 161].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 419; 29 C.R.(4th) 243, refd to. [para. 178].

R. v. Adams, [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. 467 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178, footnote 34].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 180].

Prostitution Reference - see Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 180].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 678; 21 C.R.(4th) 186; 15 C.R.R.(2d) 193; 45 M.V.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Lafferty (1993), 80 C.C.C.(3d) 150 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 192, footnote 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487.04 [para. 5]; sect. 487.05 [para. 40]; sect. 487.06(1)(a), sect. 487.06(1)(b), sect. 487.06(1)(c) [para. 45]; sect. 487.06(2) [para. 127]; sect. 487.07(1), sect. 487.07(2)(a), sect. 487.07(2)(b) sect. 487.07(3) [para. 124]; sect. 487.08(1) [para. 45].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 35th Parliament, June 22, 1995, p. 14489 [para. 23, footnote 3].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Obtaining Forensic Evidence: Investigative Procedures in Respect of the Person, Report No. 25 (1985), pp. 32 [para. 117]; 38 [para. 91, footnote 24].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Recodifying Criminal Procedure, Report No. 33 (1991), vol. 1, title 1 [para. 66].

Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ouimet Report) (1969), p. 48 [para. 55].

Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (CM 2663) (1993), p. 14 [para. 66, footnote 15].

Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Report of Proceedings (1995), pp. 46:8 [para. 66, footnote 15]; 49:23 [para. 97, footnote 25]; 49:40, 49:42, 49:48, 49:49, 49:53 [para. 192, footnote 36]; 49:54-5 [para. 87, footnote 23].

Canada, Statistics Canada, Juristats: Canadian Crime Statistics (1995), generally [para. 60].

Canada, Technical Working Group for DNA Analysis, Guidelines for a Quality Assurance Program for DNA Analysis, generally [para. 174].

Easton, S.M., Bodily Samples and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, [1991] Crim. L.R. 18, pp. 26, 27 [para. 116].

Europe, Council of, The Use of Analysis of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Within the Framework of the Criminal Justice System, Recommendation No. R(92)(1) and explanatory memorandum (1992), pp. 5, 6, 25 to 27 [para. 121].

Federico, R.G., The Genetic Witness: DNA Evidence and Canada's Criminal Law (1990-91), 33 C.L.Q. 204, pp. 220, 221, 222 [para. 177, footnote 32].

Gee, M.M., Propriety of Search Involving Removal of Natural Substance or Foreign Object by Actual or Threatened Force, A.L.R. Fed. Supp. (1996), generally [para. 65, footnote 15].

Jonakait, R.N., Forensic Science: The Need for Regulation (1991), 4 Harv. J. of Law and Technology 109, generally [para. 177, footnote 31].

Ouimet Report - see Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ouimet Report).

Pomerance, R.M., Bill C-104: A Practical Guide to the New DNA Warrants (1995), 39 C.R.(4th) 224, p. 235 [para. 129, footnote 27].

Riley, M.A., How Should North Dakota Approach the Admissibility of DNA: A Comprehensive Analysis of How Other Courts Approach the Admissibility of DNA (1996), 72 North Dak. L. Rev. 607, generally [paras. 24, footnote 5; 65, footnote 15].].

Scotland, Law Commission Report, Report on Evidence: Blood Group Tests, DNA Tests and Related Matters, Scot. L. Com. No. 120 (1989), pp. 14, 15, paras. 2.38, 2.41 [para. 115]; 15, para. 2.39 [para. 120].

United States, Department of Justice Study, National Institute of Justice, Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial (June 1996), pp. 12 to 17, paras. xxvii to xxix [para. 65, footnote 14].

United States, National Research Council Report, DNA Technology in Forensic Science (1992), p. S-14, s. 4-1 [para. 168, footnote 30].

United States, National Research Council, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence (1996), pp. 1-5 [para. 65, footnotes 9, 13]; 1-11 [para. 171]; 3-12 [paras. 171, 186]; 6-12, 6-13 [para. 172]; 6-14 to 6-18 [para. 190, footnote 35].

van Kampen, Petra, and Nijboer, Hans, DNA Fingerprinting in the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (March 1995), generally [para. 122].

Vertes, J., Confronting the New Challenges of Scientific Evidence - DNA Evidence and the Criminal Defence (1995), 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1557, pp. 1559 to 1561 [para. 192, footnote 36].

Counsel:

L. Strezos and D. Tanovich, for the applicant;

R. Levine, Q.C., and J. Kehoe, for the Attorney General of Canada;

M. Bartlett, for the Attorney General of Ontario.

This application was heard on December 16 and 17, 1996, February 19-21, March 18, 19, June 4 and October 8, 1997, by Hill, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following decision on October 9, 1997.