R. v. Beare (1988), 71 Sask.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Her Majesty the Queen v. Claude R. Beare and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General for New Brunswick, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General for Alberta and The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police;
Her Majesty the Queen v. Frederick G. Higgins and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General for New Brunswick, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General for Alberta and The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
(No. 20384)
Indexed As: R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer,
Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L’Heureux-Dube, JJ.
December 1, 1988.
Summary:
The accused Higgins was charged with defrauding a company of more than $200.00 contrary to s. 338(1) of the Criminal Code. The accused Beare was charged with break, enter and theft contrary to s. 306(1) of the Code. Both accused were required to appear for fingerprinting pursuant to the Identification of Criminals Act. Both accused refused to report as required and challenged the constitutional validity of the Identification of Criminals Act. The trial judges, in separate decisions, dismissed the actions. The accused both appealed. The appeals were heard together.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in [1987] 4 W.W.R. 309; 56 Sask.R. 173; 57 C.R.(3d) 193, allowed the appeals. The Court of Appeal held that s. 2 of the Identification of Criminals Act and ss. 453.3 (3) and 455.5(5) of the Criminal Code violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person in s. 7 of the Charter and were of no force and effect. The court further held that the violation was not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. The accused both appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals and held that the taking of fingerprints pursuant to the impugned legislation did not violate the principles of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 of the Charter.
Civil Rights – Topic 1217
Security of the person – Lawful or reasonable search – Unreasonable search and seizure defined – Section 8 of the Charter guaranteed the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure – The Supreme Court of Canada opined that assuming fingerprinting could be looked on as a “search”, the fingerprinting of persons arrested but not yet convicted of an indictable offence pursuant to s. 2 of the Identification of Criminals Act and ss. 453.3(3) and 455.5(5) of the Criminal Code, would not be unreasonable – See paragraph 64.
Civil Rights – Topic 1406
Security of the person – Law enforcement – Fingerprinting – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the federal provisions respecting the fingerprinting of persons arrested but not yet convicted of an indictable offence, namely, s. 2 of the Identification of Criminals Act and ss. 453.3 (3) and 455.5(5) of the Criminal Code, did not violate s. 7 of the Charter – The court specifically held that the alleged infringement did not violate the principles of fundamental justice and that the legislation was not arbitrary in scope, applying only to three categories of accused who have not yet been convicted of an indictable offence – The existence of a statutory discretion in police to require fingerprinting did not offend the principles of fundamental justice – Neither did the provisions offend the accused’s privacy.
Civil Rights – Topic 8472
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Precedent – General – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “while the common law is, of course, not determinative in assessing whether a particular practice violates a principle of fundamental justice, it is certainly one of the major repositories of the basic tenants of our legal system referred to in Re B.C. Motor Vehicles Act …” – See paragraph 39.
Civil Rights – Topic 8546
Charter – Interpretation – Life, liberty and security of the person – [See Civil Rights – Topic 1406 above].
Civil Rights – Topic 8546
Charter – Interpretation – Life, liberty and security of the person – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the analysis of s. 7 of the Charter involves two steps. To trigger its operation there must first be a finding that there has been a deprivation of the right to ‘life, liberty and security of the person’ and, secondly, that that deprivation is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. Like other provisions of the Charter, s. 7 must be construed in light of the interests it was meant to protect. It should be given a generous interpretation, but it is important not to overshoot the actual purpose of the right in question” – See paragraph 28.
Criminal Law – Topic 3254
Compelling appearance, detention and release – Appearance and appearance notice – Power to compel attendance of accused for purposes of Identification of Criminals Act – [See Civil Rights – Topic 1406 above].
Criminal Law – Topic 3254
Compelling appearance, detention and release – Appearance and appearance notice – Power to compel attendance of accused for purposes of Identification of Criminals Act – The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the specific purposes of ss. 453.3(3) and 455.5(5) of the Criminal Code, respecting fingerprinting – See paragraphs 26 to 27.
Cases Noticed:
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; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 36 M.V.R. 240, refd to. [para. 12].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; 11 D.L.R. (4th) 641, refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. Bacon (1915), 11 Cr. App. R. 90, refd to. [para. 21].
People v. Sallow, 165 N.Y.S. 915, refd to. [para. 21].
Pelletier v. Le Roi, [1952] B.R. 633, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 30].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Morrison (1987), 20 O.A.C. 230, refd to. [para. 33].
Adair v. M’Garry, [1933] S.L.T. 482, refd to. [para. 33].
United States v. Kelly (1932), 55 F.2d 67, refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Buckingham and Vickers (1943), 86 C.C.C. 76 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].
R. v. Hayward (1957), 118 C.C.C. 365 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
R. v. Nowakowski (1977), 40 C.R.N.S. 144 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].
R. v. McLarty (No. 2) (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 72 (Ont. Ct. Sess. Peace), refd to. [para. 36].
R. v. Nielsen and Stolar (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 81; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 39 (Man. C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1985] 1 S.C.R. xi; 58 N.R. 318; 31 Man.R.(2d) 240, refd to. [para. 36].
R. v. A.N. (1978), 2 C.R.(3d) 55 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
Brown v. Baugh and Williams (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 71 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
Callis v. Gunn, [1963] 3 All E.R. 677 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 37].
Dumbell v. Roberts, [1944] 1 All E.R. 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
Hayes v. Florida (1985), 470 U.S. 811, refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 141, refd to. [para. 53].
United States v. Robinson (1973), 414 U.S. 218, refd to. [para. 54].
R. v. McGregor (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 200 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 64].
M.H. and The Queen (No. 2), Re (1984), 17 C.C.C.(3d) 443 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 64].
Jamieson and The Queen, Re (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 430 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 65].
R. v. Halpern (1986), 73 A.R. 276 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 65].
Schmerber v. California (1966), 384 U.S. 757, refd to. [para. 66].
Statutes Noticed:
Bail Reform Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 2, sect. 5 [para. 26].
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 8, 11, 16, 68]; sect. 7 [paras. 1, 7-9; 17-18, 28-29, 58, 68]; sect. 8 [paras. 58, 64]; sect. 9 [para. 65]; sect. 10, sect. 11(c) [para. 66]; sect. 11(d) [para. 67].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 133(4), sect. 455.6 [para. 4]; sect. 133(5), sect. 453.4 [para. 3]; sect. 450(1), sect. 455.1, sect. 455.3, sect. 455.4, Form 2 [para. 46]; sect. 451 [para. 1]; sect. 453.3(3) [paras. 1, 2, 8, 15, 17-18, 26-27, 46]; sect. 455.5 [para. 1]; sect. 455.5(5) [paras. 1, 4, 8, 15, 17-18, 26-27, 46].
Identification of Criminals Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-1, sect. 2 [paras. 12, 8, 10, 14-15, 17-18, 33, 46, 62].
Police and Criminal Evidence Act (U.K.), 1984, c. 60, generally [paras. 10, 40]; sect. 61 [para. 54].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Campbell, Donald, Fingerprints: A Review, [1985] Crim. L.R. 195, p. 196 [para. 21].
Canada, Law Reform Commission, Investigative Tests (1983) [para. 54].
Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969), p. 98 [para. 26].
Debates of the Senate, March 29, 1971, pp. 786-792 [para. 26].
Moenssens, Andre A., Fingerprints and the Law (1969), c. 4, pp. 40-43 [para. 37]; 43-60 [para. 40]; 62-66 [para. 66]; 62-70 [para. 61]; 62-72 [para. 41].
Ouimet Report – see Canada, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections.
Counsel:
Robert G. Richards and Kenneth J. Tyler, for the appellant;
David G. MacKay, for the respondent, Beare;
William Corbett, Q.C., for the Attorney General of Canada;
S. Casey Hill, for the Attorney General for Ontario;
Grant S. Garneau (absent), for the Attorney General for New Brunswick;
Stuart Whitley and Marva Smith, for the Attorney General of Manitoba;
Jack Watson, for the Attorney General for Alberta;
B.A. Crane, Q.C. (absent), and Henry S. Brown, for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Solicitors of Record:
Brian Barrington-Foote, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the appellant;
MacKay & McLean, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respondent, Beare;
Gates & Herle, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respondent, Higgins;
Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;
Ministry of Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;
Barry Athey, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervenor, Attorney General for New Brunswick;
Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Manitoba;
Jack Watson, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Alberta;
John J. Robinette, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
These appeals were heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L’Heureux-Dube, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on December 16 and 17, 1987.
The Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on December 17, 1987. On December 1, 1988, La Forest, J., delivered written reasons for the Supreme Court in both official languages. Estey and Le Dain, JJ., joined in the judgment of December 17, 1987, but took no part in the written reasons
