Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Buckley, 2015 ONCA 364 Date: 2015-05-21 Docket: C58906

Before: Hoy A.C.J.O., Doherty and Benotto JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Danielle Buckley Appellant

Counsel: Misha Feldmann, for the appellant Cindy Afonso, for the respondent

Heard: May 19, 2015

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Leitch of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 3, 2014.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The reasons of the trial judge are adequate. She reviewed the evidence at length. She accepted the officer’s evidence as to the purpose of his search. That evidence was not controverted.

[2] As to the search of the vehicle, the appellant accepts that there will be cases where a search of the glove box and console for the relevant documents (insurance, ownership and registration) will be lawful, but argues that on these facts the search could not be justified.

[3] We need not explore the meaning of the dicta in Belnavis, at para. 28, relied on by the Crown to support his position. In our view, even if the search could be said to constitute a violation of the appellant’s s. 8 rights, the evidence could not be excluded under s. 24(2).

[4] On the trial judge’s findings, which we accept for this purpose, the officer acted in good faith and in an effort to help the appellant. The assumed breach of s. 8 was an isolated act in an otherwise entirely proper interaction between the officer and the appellant. The police conduct falls at the very low end of the blameworthiness scale.

[5] The seriousness of the violation of the appellant’s rights is also minimal. Her privacy interest in the inside of the console and glove box of a car she did not own and was not allowed to drive can only be described as minimal. This factor does not favour intrusion.

[6] The third Grant factor, as always, favours admission, especially given the centrality of the seized evidence to the charge.

[7] The evidence could not be excluded under s. 24(2). The appeal is dismissed.