James W. Leising

The RCMP used an airplane equipped with a Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) camera to overfly the accused's home without a warrant.

The FLIR image, which detected heat emanations consistent with a marijuana grow operation, was used to obtain a search warrant.

The accused argued the FLIR overflight violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the use of FLIR technology did not violate s. 8, as the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the heat distribution patterns on the external surfaces of his home.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.

The appellant appealed a conviction for importing heroin and argued that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence seized from a hotel room following a warrantless arrest that violated ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge committed no error of law in applying the s. 24(2) analysis and was entitled to conclude that, although the breaches were serious, their seriousness was somewhat blunted by the officer’s honest belief and the surrounding circumstances.

The court rejected arguments concerning search incident to arrest, the effect of discoverability, and the alleged failure to consider a pattern of Charter breaches.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a narcotics importation conviction entered after a guilty plea following an unsuccessful voir dire seeking exclusion of cocaine found during a border strip search.

The court upheld the trial judge’s finding that customs officers had reasonable grounds to suspect contraband under s. 98 of the Customs Act, although the threshold was met only minimally.

While breaches of ss. 10(b) and 8 of the Charter were found because the search proceeded before the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel, the evidence was properly treated as non-conscriptive and, in any event, discoverable.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court deferred to the trial judge’s conclusion that exclusion would do greater harm to the repute of the administration of justice than admission.

The appellant appealed a conviction for unlawful cultivation of marijuana based on evidence seized under a warrant-authorized search of his home.

He argued that the warrant lacked reasonable grounds and that inaccuracies in the supporting information required the warrant to be quashed, with the resulting evidence excluded under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court held that the anonymous tip, police observations, and hydro consumption evidence, assessed on the corrected and amplified record, met the reasonable grounds threshold under the governing authorities.

The court further held that the misstatements were not deliberate, did not seriously mislead the issuing justice, and did not invalidate the warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused arrived at Pearson International Airport and was suspected by customs officers of having ingested narcotics.

He was detained in a 'drug loo facility' until he passed 84 pellets of heroin.

He was convicted at trial, but the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, finding violations of his Charter rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the detention and 'bedpan vigil' were authorized by s. 98 of the Customs Act and did not violate the accused's rights under s. 7 or s. 8 of the Charter.

The accused was charged with possession of LSD for the purpose of trafficking after police found a bag of LSD with his fingerprints under a sofa in his shared residence.

A co-tenant testified that the accused was a drug dealer and owned the drugs.

The trial judge convicted the accused, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge was entitled to infer possession from the fingerprint evidence combined with the co-tenant's testimony, which was admissible as it was relevant to the issue of possession and not merely character evidence.

During an income tax audit, Revenue Canada served the appellants with demands for information and documents pursuant to s. 231(3) of the Income Tax Act.

The appellants failed to comply and were charged under s. 238(2).

They challenged the constitutional validity of s. 231(3), arguing it violated the protection against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while a demand for documents constitutes a seizure, it is not unreasonable in the administrative and regulatory context of the Income Tax Act, which relies on self-reporting and requires random monitoring to ensure compliance.