R. v. Collins (1987), 74 N.R. 276 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Ruby Collins v. Her Majesty the Queen
(17937)
Indexed As: R. v. Collins
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
April 9, 1987.
Summary:
The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following surveillance by the police. The drugs were found in the accused’s possession inside a balloon. The drugs were seized by the police following a throat hold on the accused.
The trial judge in a decision reported at [1983] W.C.D. 061; [1983] B.C. W.L.D. 1180, convicted the accused. The court held that the search by the police was unlawful and unreasonable, violating the accused’s rights under s. 8 of the Charter. The judge, however, refused to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter. See paragraphs 9 to 12 below. The accused appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at [1983] 5 W.W.R. 43; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 40; 5 C.C.C. (3d) 141, dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial judge. See paragraphs 13 to 17 below. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, McIntyre, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The court held that the search of the accused was unreasonable. The court held, however, that the evidence obtained could not be excluded at this stage because the police were not given an adequate opportunity to explain the grounds for their actions. The court stated that if the police, at the new trial, did not disclose additional grounds for their behaviour, the evidence obtained must be excluded for bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
Civil Rights – Topic 3126
Trials – Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings – Criminal proceedings – Fair hearing – What constitutes – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “if the admission of the evidence in some way affects the fairness of the trial, then the admission of the evidence would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and subject to a consideration of the other relevant factors, the evidence generally should be excluded” – See paragraph 36.
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusion of evidence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the test is “whether the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Misconduct by the police in the investigatory process often has some effect on the repute of the administration of justice, but s. 24(2) is not a remedy for police misconduct, requiring the exclusion of evidence if, because of this misconduct, the administration of justice was brought into disrepute”. – The court stated that “it would be inconsistent with the purpose of s. 24(2) to exclude the evidence if its exclusion would bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than would its admission – See paragraph 31.
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusions of evidence – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the resort to tricks that are not in the least unlawful let alone in violation of the Charter to obtain a statement should not result in the exclusion of a free and voluntary statement unless the trick resorted to is a dirty trick, one that shocks the community” – See paragraph 41.
Civil Rights – Topic 8550
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Particular phrases – Bring the administration of justice into disrepute – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the burden of proof is on an accused, on the balance of probabilities, to establish that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute – See paragraph 30.
Civil Rights – Topic 8550
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Particular phrases – Bring the administration of justice into disrepute – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed ten factors which are most frequently considered in determining whether the admission of evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute – See paragraph 35.
Civil Rights – Topic 8550
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Particular phrases – Bring the administration of justice into disrepute – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “if the admission of the evidence in some way affects the fairness of the trial, then the admission of the evidence would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and subject to a consideration of the other relevant factors, the evidence generally should be excluded” – See paragraph 36.
Civil Rights – Topic 8550
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Interpretation – Particular phrases – Bring the administration of justice into disrepute – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 24(2) of the Charter must be interpreted in light of the less onerous test found in the French version of the section; therefore, the section should be read as “the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceeding ‘could’ bring the administration of justice into disrepute” – See paragraphs 42 and 43.
Criminal Law – Topic 5337
Evidence and witnesses – Confessions and voluntary statements – Admissibility – General – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the resort to tricks that are not in the least unlawful let alone in violation of the Charter to obtain a statement should not result in the exclusion of a free and voluntary statement unless the trick resorted to is a dirty trick, one that shocks the community” – See paragraph 41.
Narcotic Control – Topic 2062
Search and seizure – Warrantless searches – Reasonable grounds – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that for a search to be lawful under s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act, the Crown must establish that the officer believed on reasonable grounds that there was a narcotic in the place where the person searched was found – See paragraph 24.
Narcotic Control – Topic 2062
Search and seizure – Warrantless searches – Reasonable grounds – Heroin was seized from the accused following a throat hold on the accused by police – The warrantless search was allegedly made pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Narcotic Control Act – The Supreme Court of Canada, upheld the decision of the trial judge that the search was unreasonable, unlawful and carried out with unnecessary violence – The court stated that the Crown failed to establish the officer’s belief and the reasonable grounds for that belief, in conducting the search – See paragraphs 21 to 28.
Narcotic Control – Topic 2063
Search and seizure – Warrantless searches – Reasonable grounds – Evidence – Hearsay rule – The Supreme Court of Canada re-affirmed that “reasonable grounds for belief in conducting a search can be based on information received from third parties with out infringing the hearsay rule” – See paragraph 26.
Statutes – Topic 1803
Interpretation – Intrinsic aids – Bilingual statutes – Interpretation of both versions – In interpreting the phrase “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the test to be applied is the less onerous test in the French version of the statute which translates “could bring the administration of justice into disrepute” – See paragraphs 42 and 43.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Rothman, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640; 35 N.R. 485, refd to. [para. 12].
Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655, consd. [para. 18].
R. v. De Bot, 17 O.A.C. 141, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Lundrigan (1985), 33 Man.R.(2d) 286; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 499 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 11 D.L.R. (4th) 641; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R. (3d) 97, consd. [para. 22].
R. v. Prairie Schooner News Ltd. and Powers (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 251 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].
R. v. Towne Cinema Theatres Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 494; 59 N.R. 101; 61 A.R. 35; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 1; 18 C.C. C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 32].
R. v. Cohen (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 156 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Simmons (1984), 3 O.A.C. 1; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Pohoretsky (1985), 32 Man.R.(2d) 291; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 104 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Dyment (1986), 57 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 210; 170 A.P.R. 210; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 120 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Gladstone (1985), 22 C.C.C.(3d) 151 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40, refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Dumas (1985), 66 A.R. 137; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 366 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Strachan (1986), 24 C.C.C.(3d) 205 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 37, 51].
R. v. Dairy Supplies Limited (1987), 44 Man.R.(2d) 275 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [paras. 8, 19]; sect. 11(d) [para. 36]; sect. 24(1) [paras. 19, 21]; sect. 24(2) [paras. 3 et seq.].
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 10(1) [paras. 7, 23].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Gibson, Dale, Law of the Charter: General Principles (1986), pp. 236-247 [para. 32]; 245 [para. 31]; 246 [para. 32]; 261 [para. 40]; 278 [para. 21].
Morissette, Yves-Marie, The Exclusion of Evidence Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: What To Do and What Not to Do (1984), 29 McGill L.J. 521, pp. 529-531 [para. 39]; 533 [para. 51]; 538 [para. 33].
Counsel:
G.A. Goyer, for the appellant;
S. David Frankel and Donald J. Avison, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 27, 1986, before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was rendered on April 9, 1987, in both official languages when the following reasons were delivered:
Lamer, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson and La Forest, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 46;
Le Dain, J. – see paragraph 47;
McIntyre, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 48 to 63.
Chouinard, J., because of his death, took no part in the decision.
