R. v. Grant (D.A.) (1993), 35 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);
57 W.A.C. 1
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
R. (appellant) v. David Angelo Grant (respondent) and Robert Wallace Wiley (intervener)
(23075)
Indexed As: R. v. Grant (D.A.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, P.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
September 30, 1993.
Summary:
The accused Grant was charged with unlawfully cultivating marihuana and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after police found 80 marihuana plants growing in the basement of a house he occupied, but did not live in. The police had reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was cultivating marihuana in the basement and with no urgency conducted a warrantless perimeter search for further information. Based on information from the perimeter search and other information, the police obtained a search warrant under s. 487 of the Criminal Code (instead of s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act), executed it during daylight and found the plants. The British Columbia Supreme Court acquitted the accused after ruling that the perimeter search was improper and that the search warrant was invalid, because it should have been obtained under s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act. The Crown appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a judgment reported 14 B.C.A.C. 94; 26 W.A.C. 94; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 315; 14 C.R.(3d) 260; 11 C.R.R.(2d) 159. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Court affirmed that the perimeter search violated the accused’s rights under s. 8 of the Charter because there were no exigent circumstances, but held that the search warrant was valid, where sufficient information supported it without the information yielded by the illegal perimeter search and where applying for the warrant under s. 487 was perfectly permissible. The Court held that the evidence found was admissible despite the Charter violation, because the evidence was real, the police in good faith thought the perimeter search was lawful, the search was reasonably carried out and the offence charged was serious, so that exclusion of the evidence would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Civil Rights – Topic 1604
Property – Search warrants – Validity of – Police had reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was cultivating marihuana – After a warrantless perimeter search of the accused’s non-residential property, which violated s. 8 of the Charter because there were no exigent circumstances, the police used information from the search and other information to obtain a search warrant under s. 487 of the Criminal Code, instead of s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act – The Supreme Court of Canada held that obtaining the warrant under the Criminal Code instead of the Narcotic Control Act was permissible and further that the warrant was valid, where it was supported by sufficient information without the information from the illegal perimeter search – See paragraphs 39 to 54.
Civil Rights – Topic 1646
Property – Search and seizure – Unreasonable search and seizure defined – [See second
Civil Rights – Topic 1654
].
Civil Rights – Topic 1654
Property – Search and seizure – Warrantless search and seizure – Perimeter searches – The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 10 of the Narcotic Control Act “may validly authorize a search or seizure without warrant in exigent circumstances which render it impracticable to obtain a warrant. Exigent circumstances will generally be held to exist if there is an imminent danger of the loss, removal, destruction or disappearance of the evidence if the search or seizure is delayed. While the fact that the evidence sought is believed to be present on a motor vehicle, water vessel, aircraft or other fast moving vehicle will often create exigent circumstances, no blanket exception exists for such conveyances.” – See paragraphs 20 to 33 – The Court read down s. 10 to preserve its constitutionality – See paragraphs 34 to 38.
Civil Rights – Topic 1654
Property – Search and seizure – Warrantless search and seizure – Perimeter searches – Acting on reasonable grounds, but no urgency, the police conducted a warrantless perimeter search of the accused’s non-residential property – They used information from the search and other information to obtain a search warrant under the Criminal Code, s. 487, instead of the Narcotic Control Act, s. 10 – Marihuana plants found – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the perimeter search violated s. 8 of the Charter because there were no exigent circumstances, but held that the search warrant was valid, where sufficient information supported it without the information from the illegal perimeter search – The Court held that the evidence found was admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter, because to exclude it would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusion of evidence – [See second
Civil Rights – Topic 1654
].
Civil Rights – Topic 8380.18
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Reading down – [See first
Civil Rights – Topic 1654
].
Narcotic Control – Topic 2028
Search and seizure – Search warrants – Issuance of – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 1604
].
Narcotic Control – Topic 2065
Search and seizure – Warrantless searches – Perimeter searches – [See both
Civil Rights – Topic 1654
].
Statutes – Topic 1624
Interpretation – Extrinsic aids – Other statutes – Prior statutes respecting same subject matter – The Supreme Court of Canada in construing the effect of s. 487 of the Criminal Code considered prior versions of the section – See paragraphs 40 to 41.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, reving. 46 C.C.C.(3d) 194 (B.C.C.A.), appld. [paras. 10, 50, 61].
Multiform Manufacturing Co. et autres v. R. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 624; 113 N.R. 373; 32 Q.A.C. 241, appld. [paras. 11, 39, 41.
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. [paras. 12, 60].
R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, appld. [paras. 14, 60].
R. v. Wiley (R.W.) (1991), 9 B.C.A.C. 271; 19 W.A.C. 271 (C.A.), affd. 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. Kokesch (1988), 46 C.C.C.(3d) 194 (B.C.C.A.), appld. [para. 15].
R. v. Rao (1984), 4 O.A.C. 162; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), appld. [para. 22].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, appld. [para. 23].
R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 24].
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, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385, refd to. [para. 24].
Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270, refd to. [para. 24].
Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Colet, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 2; 35 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, consd. [paras. 29, 63].
R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. I.D.D. (1987), 60 Sask.R. 72; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].
Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, appld. [para. 34].
Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, appld. [para. 36].
R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163, appld. [para. 39].
R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273, appld. [paras. 39, 56].
R. v. Goodbaum (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 473 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 40].
Campbell v. Clough (1979), 23 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 249; 61 A.P.R. 249 (P.E.I.S.C.), consd. [para. 40].
R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161, appld. [para. 49].
R. v. Sismey (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 281 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 51].
R. v. Donaldson (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 294 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 51].
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, appld. [para. 56].
R. v. Brick (1989), 19 M.V.R.(2d) 158 (Alta. C.A.), appld. [para. 58].
R. v. Langdon (1992), 74 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (Nfld. C.A.), appld. [para. 58].
R. v. Duguay, Murphy and Sevigny, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 93; 91 N.R. 201; 31 O.A.C. 177, appld. [para. 59].
R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, appld. [para. 59].
Statutes Noticed:
Bankruptcy Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. B-3, sect. 6 [para. 41].
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 24(2) [para. 19].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 443(1)(a) [para. 40].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487 [para. 19].
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 34 [para. 41].
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 10, sect. 12 [para. 19].
Counsel:
S. David Frankel, Q.C., for the appellant Crown;
David M. Rosenberg and Paul Rosenberg, for the respondent accused;
Greg Cranston, for the intervener.
Solicitors of Record:
John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant Crown;
Rosenberg & Rosenberg, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent accused;
Greg Cranston, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener.
This case was heard on April 2, 1993, before Lamer, P.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On September 30, 1993, Sopinka, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages.
