Mitchell v. R.,

R. v. Mitchell (C.) (2005), 295 N.B.R.(2d) 251 (CA);

    295 R.N.-B.(2e) 251; 766 A.P.R. 251

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.058

Correll Mitchell (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(41/05/CA; 2005 NBCA 104)

Indexed As: R. v. Mitchell (C.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Deschênes, Robertson and Richard, JJ.A.

November 23, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of a substance for the purposes of trafficking after crack cocaine was found in his car as a result of a warrantless search. He moved for the exclusion of the crack cocaine evidence on the basis of a contravention of s. 8 of the Charter, which guaranteed the right to be secure against unreasonable searches.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court dismissed the accused's motion for exclusion and found the accused guilty of the offence charged. The accused appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Richard, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and entered a verdict of not guilty.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unrea­sonable search and seizure defined - The police had information indicating that the accused was planning to sell drugs and that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice - They pulled over the accused's vehicle and arrested him for obstruction of justice - The police impounded the unin­sured vehicle and, without a warrant, searched it for drugs - Crack cocaine was found - The accused was charged with a drug offence - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal acquitted him - The warrantless search of the accused's vehicle was unrea­sonable within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter because it was not truly incidental to his arrest for obstruction of justice - The court excluded the evidence obtained where (1) the police ought to have known what the law was with respect to a vehicle search incidental to arrest and (2) the law clearly required the issuance of a search warrant in the circumstances here - The Crown's case collapsed without the ex­cluded evidence - See paragraphs 1 to 36.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Police - Topic 3185

Powers - Search - Following arrest or detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208, consd. [para. 3].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, consd. [para. 3].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161, consd. [paras. 3, 39].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72, consd. [paras. 3, 39].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1, consd. [paras. 3, 39].

R. v. Pellerin (L.) (1999), 209 N.B.R.(2d) 149; 535 A.P.R. 149 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 3, 39].

R. v. Kelly (R.W.) (1999), 213 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 545 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 3, 49].

Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; 105 N.R. 241; 30 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 3 (C.A.), consd. [para. 10].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81, consd. [paras. 10, 39].

R. v. Nicolosi (J.) (1998), 110 O.A.C. 189; 40 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1, consd. [para. 17].

Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739; 3 N.R. 259, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Colet, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 2; 35 N.R. 227, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Byfield (C.A.) (2005), 194 O.A.C. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Calderon (2004), 188 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Perello (E.F.) (2005), 257 Sask.R. 46; 342 W.A.C. 46 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Bulmer (D.L.) (2005), 269 Sask.R. 137; 357 W.A.C. 137; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 363 (C.A.), consd. [para. 34].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135, refd to. [para. 39].

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. 39].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 227; 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997), p. 1158 [para. 17].

Counsel:

Hazen L. Brien, for the appellant;

Monica G. McQueen and Christian Libotte, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 26, 2005, by Deschênes, Robertson and Richard, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Ap­peal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered in both official languages on No­vember 23, 2005, and the following written reasons were filed on January 26, 2006:

Robertson, J.A. (Deschênes, J.A., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 36;

Richard, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 37 to 51.