R. v. Lauda, 1998 CanLII 804 (SCC), [1998] 2 SCR 683
John Michael Lauda Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Lauda
1998: October 16.
Present: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Search and seizure ‑‑ Trespasser growing marijuana in abandoned fields ‑‑ Plants seized pursuant to warrant issued after police given tip ‑‑ Search and seizure not unconstitutional because trespasser without reasonable expectation of privacy.
Cases Cited
Referred to: R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(d), 24(2).
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1998), 37 O.R. (3d) 513, 106 O.A.C. 161, 122 C.C.C. (3d) 74, 13 C.R. (5th) 20, [1998] O.J. No. 71 (QL), allowing an appeal from acquittal by Laing Prov. Ct. J. Appeal dismissed.
Clayton C. Ruby and Jill Copeland, for the appellant.
Croft Michaelson and John North, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
//Cory J.//
1Cory J. ‑‑ We are all of the view that on the facts of this case the appellant, a trespasser in the fields in question, had no reasonable expectations of privacy. The decisions of this Court in R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128, and R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 341, are applicable. It follows that it is not necessary to consider s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nor do we find any merit in the alternative argument that there was a breach of s. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Department of Justice, Toronto.
