Hunter et al. v Southam Inc.
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
What is section 8 of the Charter?
This was done to determine whether the heroin in Collins' possession should be admitted into evidence at trial.
Why did Collins request a voir dire?
The taking of a thing from a person by a public authority without consent. This can still engage section 8, even when a search is not present.
What is the definition of seizure, according to the Court in Dyment?
The heat signature of the home offered no insight into his personal life, biographical information, and could scarcely be said to affect his dignity, integrity, or autonomy.
Why did the court conclude that Tessling did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
According to the majority, this exists where a person would reasonably expect not to be the subject of the type of observation or recording that in fact occurred.
What is a reasonable expectation of privacy for the purposes of section 162(1)?
If this is not obtained, there will be a presumption that the search was unreasonable, which the party seeking to justify the search will have to refute.
What is prior authorization or a warrant?
This is the test for determining if the admission of evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. (doesn't have to be an exact quote)
“Would the admission of the evidence bring the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the reasonable man, dispassionate and fully apprised of the circumstances of the case?"
La Forest found that the evidence was obtained without medical necessity, lawful authority, and without the police having probable cause.
Why did the Court in Dyment find that the administration justice would be brought into direpute by the admission of the blood sample?
This category of privacy seeks "to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state. This includes information which reveals intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual."
What is informational privacy?
While the ultimate concern of s. 8 of the Charter is to protect against state intrusion, the case law has nonetheless contemplated that individuals may have reasonable expectations of privacy against other private individuals.
What was the position of the majority in this case?
"reasonable and probable grounds, established upon oath, to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the search"
What is the minimum standard for a reasonable search and seizure under section 8?
In the case of a section 8 Charter breach, this is test for exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter. (2)
Was the search conducted by the police officer unreasonable?
If so, having regard to all the circumstances, would the admission of the evidence bring the administration of justice into disrepute?
Claims involving territorial or spatial aspects, claims related to the person, and claims that arise in the context of information.
What are the three classes of the right to privacy?
Both the SCC and the Court of Appeal agreed that FLIR imagery constitutes a search, but this is the key distinction/nuance between their findings.
The Court of Appeal treated the FLIR image as a search of the home; SCC says it is a search for information about the home.
According to the dissent, this is a two step test for reasonable expectation of privacy for the offence of voyeurism.
1) did the surreptitious observation or recording diminish the subject’s ability to maintain control over their image?
And 2) if so, did this type of observation or recording infringe the sexual integrity of the subject?
These are the three ways that the court can deal with provisions that are inconsistent with the Charter.
Reading in, reading down, or finding the provisions to be of no force and effect to the extent of the inconsistency.
These are the three questions that must be asked to determine if a search is reasonable.
Is the search authorized by law?
Is the law itself reasonable?
Is the manner in which the search was conducted reasonable?
Since the search was warrantless, it was prima facie unlawful. The Crown did not present evidence to discharge their burden.
Why did Lamer J, the concurring opinion, find that the seizure was unreasonable?
When considering the totality of the circumstances, the courts will consider these questions in determining if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Hint: 4 points, the last two come from R v Edwards)
(1)What was the subject matter of the search/image?
(2)Did the person have a direct interest in the subject matter of the search/image?
(3)Did person have a subjective expectation of privacy in the subject matter?
(4)Was this expectation objectively reasonable?
The courts should not expand criminal liability by using Charter jurisprudence. Constitutional and statutory construction inherently call for different interpretative principles.
What was the position of the dissent in this case?