Pierre Loiselle

The appellants were investigated for income tax evasion and search warrants were issued under s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act.

After the initial warrants were quashed, a second warrant was issued.

The appellants challenged the second warrant and the constitutionality of s. 231.3 by way of an originating petition for a declaration.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application, and the Court of Appeal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the matter was criminal in nature.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an action for a declaration, and that s. 231.3 of the Income Tax Act violates s. 8 of the Charter.

The appellants appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision quashing search warrants issued under section 231.3 of the Income Tax Act.

The respondents challenged the warrants, arguing that section 231.3 violated section 8 of the Charter by using the imperative word 'shall', thereby removing the authorizing judge's residual discretion to refuse a warrant even if statutory criteria were met.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a residual discretion is an indispensable requirement for a reasonable search under section 8 of the Charter.

Section 231.3(3) was declared to be of no force or effect.

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy initiated an investigation into the appellants and the RCMP obtained a search warrant under s. 443 of the Criminal Code.

The appellants applied to quash the warrant, arguing that the search should have been conducted under s. 6(2) of the Bankruptcy Act instead.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the 1985 amendment to s. 443 of the Criminal Code made it applicable to all federal statutes, regardless of whether they contain their own search and seizure provisions.

The appeal was dismissed.