COUR SUPÉRIEURE DE JUSTICE

DE L’ONTARIO

RÉFÉRENCE: Sa Majesté la Reine c. Corey Burroughs, 2015 ONCS 4693

NUMÉRO DE DOSSIER DE LA COUR : 12-1330

DATE : 2015/07/24

ENTRE :

SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE
Intimée

– et –

COREY BURROUGHS
Requérant

Juliana Martel, avocate pour l’intimée

Christian Deslauriers, avocat pour le requérant

ENTENDU LE : 11, 13 et 14 mai 2015

MOTIFS DU JUGEMENT

Charbonneau, J.

iNTRODUCTION

[1] Corey Burroughs présente une requête demandant à la Cour de :

1. Déclarer nul et sans effet le mandat de perquisition émis le 2 novembre 2012 par le juge de paix Felix Mora;

2. Exclure les éléments de preuve obtenus suite à cette perquisition en vertu de l’article 8 et du paragraphe 24(2) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.

Le point de départ

[2] Le 31 octobre 2012, deux personnes masquées, déguisées et armées d’un pistolet font irruption dans le Restauparc situé dans le village de Casselman. Ils séquestrent les deux employées présentes sur les lieux. Ils fouillent les lieux et repartent entre autre avec un ordinateur et environ 10 000$. L’argent est placé dans un sac à dos de couleur noir et rouge qu’ils avaient amenés avec eux.

[3] Les policiers sont avisés et une enquête est mise en branle. Une caméra vidéo a capté les allées et venues des malfaiteurs à l’intérieur du Restauparc. Une autre caméra vidéo permet de voir une partie de l’extérieur du Restauparc incluant, le cas échéant, le mouvement de véhicules qui ont circulé dans le champ de vision de la caméra.

[4] Les deux employées indiquent aux policiers qu’un des voleurs appelait l’autre «Corey ». Ce dernier n’a jamais parlé mais répondait par sa conduite au nom de « Corey ». L’accusé, Corey Burroughs, avait été congédié du Restauparc récemment. L’individu qui répondait au nom de « Corey » semblait être très familier avec les aires du Restauparc incluant comment désactiver une serrure sans provoquer l’alarme de sécurité. Corey Burroughs fut identifié par les victimes comme un ancien employé qui pourrait être le voleur appelé « Corey ». Corey avait travaillé au Restauparc jusqu’au printemps 2012. Il était propriétaire d’une fourgonnette rouge. Corey Burroughs fut identifié à ce moment-là comme le suspect potentiel principal. Une alerte générale fut diffusée à cet effet sur le réseau de la police provinciale (para. 33). La détective Mulcock, en route pour la scène du crime, a entendu la diffusion de cette alerte et la référence à une fourgonnette rouge.

[5] Le propriétaire du Restauparc confirma au policier vers 9 :30 que Corey Burroughs se déplaçait en Dodge Caravan rouge.

[6] Un agent de l’unité canine tenta de déceler une piste qui indiquerait la route prise par les voleurs pour quitter la région du Restauparc. Le chien n’a pu identifier aucune piste. Les policiers ont conclu, compte tenu de l’absence de piste détectée par le chien traqueur et le fait que la région est une région rurale, que les malfaiteurs s’étaient enfuis en véhicule moteur.

[7] La Dodge Caravan rouge de l’accusé est localisée à la résidence de son amie de cœur vers 5 :00 le matin du 1er novembre. Le sergent détective par intérim Fedele demande au détective Anthony Donnelly d’obtenir un mandat de perquisition pour fouiller la Dodge Caravan rouge de Corey Burroughs immatriculée Ontario APDF515. Un peu plus tard, toujours en attente du mandat de perquisition, le véhicule fut remorqué au détachement de la police provinciale à Embrun.

[8] La demande de mandat fut effectuée par transmission électronique vers 05 :11 le 2 novembre 2012. Le télémandat de perquisition fut décerné par le juge de paix Mora à 06 :30 le 2 novembre 2012.

[9] Le véhicule fut fouillé vers 9 :47 le 2 novembre 2012. Les objets suivants s’y trouvaient :

• 2 attaches noires de type « zip ties »
• Une boîte de carton pour monnaie contenant des rouleaux pour monnaie en plastique et en papier
• Une note indiquant Restaurant « fermé »
• Un pistolet à air noir KWC 1W1
• Un masque facial en plastique
• Un essuie-mains blanc
• Un masque transparent de jeune homme
• Un masque en caoutchouc avec perruque incorporée
• Un sac de sport rouge de marque « Good Life »
• Un sac à dos de marque « Targus »

La dénonciation appuyant la demande

[10] Le détective Donnelly a préparé et fait parvenir au juge de paix une longue dénonciation assermentée en vue d’obtenir le mandat. La dénonciation contient 70 paragraphes étalés sur 77 pages.

[11] La plus grande partie de la dénonciation consiste en un résumé de toutes les notes et diverses inscriptions électroniques préparées par les différents policiers qui ont participé de près ou de loin à l’enquête. Le détective Donnelly y inclus aussi certains commentaires que les autres policiers lui auraient fait part oralement. Il relate ses propres observations lors du visionnement des deux bandes vidéos. Il inclut la transcription de l’interrogatoire de l’accusé par la détective Mulcock d’une durée de 4 heures. Cette première section que j’appellerai « résumé de l’enquête » est contenue dans les pages 1 à 70 de la dénonciation.

[12] Aux pages 71 à 77, le détective Donnelly décrit les motifs sur lesquels il s’appuie pour établir les 3 conditions préalables nécessaires à la délivrance du mandat. J’appellerai cette deuxième section les « motifs raisonnables et probables » justifiant le mandat. Je crois qu’il est nécessaire de reproduire ici l’ensemble des énoncés des motifs sur lesquels l’agent Donnelly se fondait pour établir l’existence des conditions préalables prévues par les alinéas a, b, et c du paragraphe 487(1) du Code criminel.

« 57. Through the investigation to date and based on the
aforementioned, which I believe, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offence described in Appendix “B” (Armed Robbery) of this Information has been committed, and that Corey BURROUGHS (1993/04/16) of 1401 St. Joseph St. in Embrun, ON and a second unknown male did commit the offence of Armed Robbery. My grounds for belief are as follows:

a. One of the males was heard by the victims repeatedly saying the name; “Corey” throughout the armed robbery.

b. The male that was being addressed as “Corey” appeared to the victims, and in the surveillance footage, to know the layout of the building, where the safes were kept and which keys to use to open an Emergency exit door that will sound an alarm if opened incorrectly.

c. The victims believed strongly that the male being referred to as “Corey” was a past employee with the name of; Corey BURROUGHS, who had been fired from “KFC”, re-hired and then let go again recently

d. Corey BURROUGHS matched the description one of the suspects provided by the victims and the surveillance footage observed (as well as the description provided by CPIC and the MTO)

e. The bag observed on the front passenger seat of Corey BURROUGHS’ motor vehicle by Acting Detective Sgt. FEDELE was similar to the one observed being carried out of the building by the unknown male

f. Corey BURROUGHS was observed on surveillance video at the same location on the 15th of October 2012, walking around and talking to people but making no purchases (possibly casing out the building)

g. Corey BURROUGHS had been having financial problems recently and not receiving his pay cheques from work

h. Corey BURROUGHS is known to use alcohol and drugs

i. A similar type motor vehicle to Corey BURROUGHS’ was observed on the exterior surveillance footage arriving prior to the armed robbery

j. Corey BURROUGHS whereabouts on the morning of the 31st of October 2012 are unknown/unaccounted for and he did not attend any classes at “La Cite Collegiale” that day

k. Corey BURROUGHS has been investigated in the past for theft and is known to frequently hang around with others who too have a lengthy history with police for theft

(F) GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED WILL AFFORD EVIDENCE OF THE OFFENCE

58. Through the investigation to date and based on the aforementioned, which I believe, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the items described in Appendix “A” of this Information will afford evidence of the offences described in Appendix “B” (Armed Robbery) of this Information. My grounds for belief are as follows:

59. Money (Approximately $10,000 in Canadian currency)

The suspects in this case were seen by the victim as well as the surveillance footage, taking the money from the safe before fleeing the scene. This money, if located will also corroborate the victim’s statement that approximately $10,000.00 was in fact stolen. Moreover, a portion of the stolen money would have been rolled coins that would not normally be located inside a motor vehicle. Furthermore, Corey BURROUGHS is in financial distress currently and should not have this kind of money on his person or being stored in his motor vehicle. Locating the money (or a portion of it) will corroborate the victim’s version, link Corey BURROUGHS to the scene and solidify him as being responsible for this armed robbery.

60. Computer

The suspect referred to as “Corey” is seen leaving the building with a computer. If the computer is located in his motor vehicle, this would corroborate the victim’s version, link Corey BURROUGHS directly to the scene as the suspect being referred to as “Corey” and will prove him responsible for this armed robbery.

61. Back-Pack

Clearly visible in the surveillance footage was a black and red (large) backpack that the unknown suspect used to steal the money from the safe and had difficulty carrying out of the building with him. If located within Corey BURROUGHS’ motor vehicle and it matches the description and money is found inside of it, it will directly link him to the scene, corroborate the victim’s statements and prove him responsible for this armed robbery.

62. Lotto Tickets

There were 3 Lotto tickets within the involved safe that the employees had purchased as a group and made a photocopy of (2 of 3 were signed by a staff member). If located within Corey BURROUGHS’ motor vehicle, they would be matched to the photocopy and would corroborate the victim’s version, link Corey BURROUGHS to the scene and prove him responsible for the armed robbery.

63. Keys

12 to 15 keys on different key rings attached to a Purple Karabiner were snatched from the hands of Christens CHASE and were used to open the safe and the Emergency exit door. The male referred to as “Corey” leaves the building after the armed robbery with these same keys. If located within Corey BURROUGHS’ motor vehicle, it would corroborate the victim’s version, directly link him to the scene, would positively identify him as the “Corey” in the surveillance footage and prove him responsible for this armed robbery.

64. Tie-Wraps

Both victims in this matter were bound with black tie-wraps (their wrists) by the suspects and were ordered to crawl on their hands and knees around the building. If black tie-wraps are located within Corey BURROUGHS’ motor vehicle and match those used against the victim’s in this matter, it would corroborate the victims’ version, link Corey BURROUGHS to the scene and prove him responsible for this armed robbery.

65. Handguns

Both victims explained that both suspects had a black handgun in their possession during the armed robbery. Although uncertain, both victim’s appeared to believe that the handguns could be real which is why they complied with all requests made by the suspects (including waiting several minutes inside a refrigerator before coming out). If located within Corey BURROUGHS’ motor vehicle, they would be examined to determine whether they are real or not, they would be examined to determine whether or not they have been used in other similar offences and would corroborate the victims’ version, link Corey BURROUGHS to the scene and prove him responsible for the armed robbery. Lastly, whether real or not, 2 handguns were removed from the streets for everyone's safety.

66. Clothing (hoodie, running shoes, jeans, gloves and beige camouflage hood)

The clothing worn by both suspects in this matter appears to be quite unique and is clearly visible on the surveillance footage and was described well by both victims. If located inside Corey BURROUGHS’ motor vehicle, specifically the bluish-purple mosaic hoodie, white and black running shoes, dark “EXCO” jeans and black gloves, worn by the suspect referred to as “Corey”, this would corroborate the victims’ version, directly link Corey BURROUGHS to the scene, identify him as the “Corey” involved and would prove him responsible for this armed robbery.

67. Disguises (mask, balaclava, goggles)

Both suspects were observed by the victims and recorded on the surveillance footage as wearing disguises that completely concealed their faces and identity. Specifically, the suspect referred to as “Corey” was wearing an old man Halloween mask. The other suspect had a black balaclava on underneath his beige camouflage hood and goggles. Although it was Halloween, if these unique items are located inside Corey BURROUGHS’ motor vehicle, they will be submitted and examined by the Centre of Forensic sciences for DNA and then compared to the buccal swab samples taken from the victim’s as well as compared to that of Corey BURROUGHS. The black balaclava and goggles will be examined for DNA to determine who the other unknown suspect is in this matter. Lastly, these items will directly link Corey BURROUGHS and the unknown suspect to the scene, will corroborate the victims’ version, the surveillance footage and prove Corey BURROUGHS responsible for this armed robbery.

(G) GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THE THINGS SOUGHT ARE PRESENTLY AT THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED.

68. Through the investigation to date and based on the aforementioned, which I believe, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the items described in Appendix “A” of this Information will afford evidence of the offences described in Appendix “B” (Armed Robbery) of this Information and that these items will be located in the 2003, Dodge Caravan, red, motor vehicle with Ontario plate number #APDF 515 that is currently securely stored at the Embrun OPP Detachment (411 new York Central Ave., Embrun, ON). My grounds for belief are as follows:

69. Corey BURROUGHS owns and operates this motor vehicle daily. Furthermore, a Caravan type motor vehicle is observed on the exterior surveillance footage as arriving to the location minutes prior to the armed robbery. Additionally, Acting Detective Sgt. FEDELE observed a black bag on the front passenger seat that was similar to the bag observed in the interior surveillance footage being used by the suspects. Corey BURROUGHS’ whereabouts on the morning of the 31st of October 2012 are still unknown, but what it known is that he was out somewhere with this motor vehicle according to all people interviewed. It is believed that items stolen during this armed robbery are currently being stored within this motor vehicle. Since first observed at 04:55am on the 1st of November 2012 by Constables COMO and LACROIX, this motor vehicle has not been out of sight from police. Continuity is not an issue here. Once it was towed to the Embrun OPP Detachment, it was securely stored inside the garage and all doors were sealed with CFS seals. Lastly, Corey BURROUGHS matches the description of the suspect referred to as; “Corey” and described in detail by the victims and the surveillance footage.

Les principes légaux applicables en l’espèce

[13] Le juge de paix Mora au moment d’accorder le mandat doit être convaincu, à la lecture de la dénonciation en vue d’obtenir un mandat (DEVO) signée sous serment par le détective Donnelly, qu’il existe des motifs raisonnables et probables de croire qu’une infraction a été commise et que l’autorisation demandée (i.e. de fouiller la Dodge Caravan rouge 2003 appartenant à l’accusé) fournira des éléments de preuve de la perpétration de cette infraction. (Re Garofoli 1990 52 (CSC))

[14] Encore une fois, dans l’arrêt R. c. Pires 2005 CSC 66, la Cour suprême explique le rôle du juge qui révise l’autorisation de la façon suivante :

« … cette révision n’est qu’une simple audition de la preuve visant à déterminer l’admissibilité de la preuve pertinente relative à l’infraction obtenue en vertu d’une ordonnance du tribunal présumé valide. (…) »

(Le reste du jugement se poursuit exactement comme dans la décision originale.)

M.Z. CHARBONNEAU

Publié le : 24 juillet 2015

RÉFÉRENCE: Sa Majesté la Reine c. Corey Burroughs, 2015 ONCS 4693

NUMÉRO DE DOSSIER DE LA COUR : 12-1330

COUR SUPÉRIEURE DE JUSTICE
DE L’ONTARIO

ENTRE :

SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE
Intimée

– et –

Corey Burroughs
Requérant

MOTIFS DU JUGEMENT

Charbonneau, Juge

Publié le : 24 juillet 2015