Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Hines, 2009 ONCA 703

Date: 2009-10-06

Docket: C46639

Before: Moldaver, Armstrong and Epstein JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty The Queen (Respondent)

and

Wayne Hines (Appellant)

Counsel: Brian Snell for the appellant John McInnes for the respondent

On appeal from conviction by Justice Ian Nordheimer of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 8, 2006.

Heard and endorsed: October 5, 2009

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We have serious reservations about the trial judge’s s. 8 Charter analysis. These reasons should not be taken as endorsing his finding that the police violated the appellant’s s. 8 rights on the basis that the information to obtain the search warrant was deficient.

[2] Assuming, however, that the information to obtain the warrant was deficient, it missed the mark by very little. Indeed, the alleged deficiencies escaped the attention of the issuing justice.

[3] For section 24(2) purposes, applying the Grant analysis, if there was a s. 8 breach, it was not serious. The police were clearly acting in good faith and as indicated, if the information to obtain the warrant missed the mark, it did so by very little.

[4] On the second branch of Grant, the Crown accepts and we agree that the search of the appellant’s premises constituted a significant intrusion into the appellant’s privacy rights.

[5] On the third branch, the evidence (a loaded handgun) was reliable and needed by the Crown to prove a serious crime. As such, there was a strong societal interest in having the case tried on its merits.

[6] In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the trial judge was correct in admitting the gun into evidence (albeit on the former Stillman analysis that has since been overtaken by Grant).

[7] As for the s. 10(b) breach, we agree with the trial judge’s analysis and conclusion. In short, the trial judge was correct in admitting the appellant’s statement under s. 24(2).

[8] Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed.