R. v. Edwards (C.) (1996), 192 N.R. 81 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Calhoun Edwards (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(24297)
Indexed As: R. v. Edwards (C.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,
L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,
Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci
and Major, JJ.
February 8, 1996.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. He appealed his conviction, alleging Charter violations by police.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Abella, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 73 O.A.C. 55, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again. At issue was what rights the accused had to challenge the admission of evidence obtained as a result of a search of a third party’s premises (Charter, ss. 8 and 24).
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights – Topic 1508
Property – Expectation of privacy – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed what rights an accused person has to challenge the admission of evidence obtained as a result of a search of a third party’s premises (Charter, ss. 8 and 24) – See paragraphs 28 to 56.
Civil Rights – Topic 1508
Property – Expectation of privacy – Police suspected that the accused was trafficking in cocaine – After leaving his girlfriend’s apartment, the accused was arrested for a driving offence – The police then went to the girlfriend’s apartment without a warrant, gained entry and told her a number of lies and half-truths to gain her cooperation – She showed them cocaine that the accused had stashed in her couch – The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the girlfriend considered the accused to be a visitor who stayed over occasionally, he kept a few personal belongings at the apartment but did not contribute to the rent or household expenses, and although he had apartment keys he lacked authority to regulate access – He was no more than a privileged guest with no reasonable expectation of privacy (Charter, s. 8) and therefore, he could not contest the admissibility of the evidence under s. 24 – See paragraphs 28 to 51.
Civil Rights – Topic 1508
Property – Expectation of privacy – Police seized cocaine allegedly belonging to the accused at the accused’s girlfriend’s apartment – The accused argued that he should be granted automatic standing to challenge the search of the third party’s (i.e., the girlfriend’s) premises where the Crown alleged that the accused was in possession of the property which was discovered and seized – The Supreme Court of Canada, per Cory, J., rejected the “automatic standing rule”, stating that the “reasonable expectation of privacy concept has worked well in Canada. It has proved to be reasonable, flexible and viable. I can see no reason for abandoning it in favour of the discredited rule of automatic standing” – See paragraphs 52 to 56.
Civil Rights – Topic 1508
Property – Expectation of privacy – The Supreme Court of Canada summarized seven principles respecting the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure (Charter, s. 8): (1) only the person whose Charter rights were infringed can claim s. 24(2) relief; (2) s. 8 is a personal right protecting people not places; (3) the right to challenge a search’s legality depends upon the accused establishing that his personal rights to privacy were violated; (4) generally, two distinct inquiries must be made respecting s. 8, first whether the accused has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and second, if he has such an expectation, was the police search conducted reasonably; (5) and (6) a reasonable expectation of privacy is to be determined by considering the totality of the circumstances, including those listed by the court, and (7) if an accused establishes a reasonable expectation of privacy, the inquiry must proceed to the second stage to determine whether the search was conducted reasonably – See paragraph 45.
Civil Rights – Topic 1641
Property – Search and seizure – General – [See first and fourth
Civil Rights – Topic 1508
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusion of evidence – [See first, second and fourth
Civil Rights – Topic 1508
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8380
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Status – [See all four
Civil Rights – Topic 1508
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Pugliese (1992), 52 O.A.C. 280; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 295 (C.A.), appld. [para. 11].
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. 29, 60].
Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, refd to. [paras. 29, 67].
R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 460, refd to. [para. 31].
R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 32].
Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980), 448 U.S. 98, refd to. [para. 33].
Alderman v. United States (1969), 394 U.S. 165, refd to. [para. 34].
Rakas v. Illinois (1978), 439 U.S. 128, refd to. [paras. 35, 68].
United States v. Salvucci (1980), 448 U.S. 83, refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 225; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 481; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 321; 80 C.R.(3d) 129; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 596; 50 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 36, 63].
R. v. Sandhu (K.S.) (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 203; 47 W.A.C. 203; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].
R. v. Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588; 75 N.R. 81; 78 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 193 A.P.R. 183; 33 C.C.C. (3d) 289; 57 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 D.L.R. (4th) 481, refd to. [para. 45].
United States v. Gomez (1994), 16 F.3d 254 (8th Circ.), refd to. [para. 45].
Jones v. United States (1960), 362 U.S. 257, refd to. [paras. 52, 67].
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; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 59].
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. [para. 62].
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; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278; 71 O.R.(2d) 575, refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Duarte – see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 10 et seq.]; sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11 [para. 59]; sect. 24(1), sect. 24(2) [para. 14 et seq.].
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-8, sect. 217(2) [para. 3].
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 4(2) [para. 8].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Amsterdam, Anthony G., Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment (1974), 58 Minn. L.R. 349, p. 349 [para. 66].
Dawe, Jonathan, Standing to Challenge Searches and Seizures Under the Charter: The Lessons of American Experience and Their Application to Canadian Law (1993), 52 U. of T. Faculty of Law Rev. 39, generally [para. 65]; p. 43 et seq. [para. 67].
Doernberg, Donald L., The “Right of the People”: Reconciling Collective and Individual Interests Under the Fourth Amendment (1983), 58 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 259, generally [para. 65]; 259 [para. 66].
Dworkin, Ronald, Fact Style Adjudication and the Fourth Amendment: The Limits of Lawyering (1973), 48 Ind. L.J. 329, p. 329 [para. 66].
Macdonald, David A., Standing to Challenge Searches and Seizures: A Small Group of States Chart Their Own Course (1990), 63 Temple Law Rev. 559, generally [para. 65]; pp. 571, 572, 576 [para. 53].
Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1989), vol. 12, “privacy” [para. 49].
Counsel:
Keith E. Wright and Peter B. Hambly, for the appellant;
Robert W. Hubbard and Joseph DeFilippis, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Keith E. Wright, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
The Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on June 1, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on February 8, 1996, including the following opinions:
Cory, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 57;
La Forest, J. – see paragraphs 58 to 69;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J. – see paragraphs 70, 71;
Gonthier, J. – see paragraph 72.
