Information No.: CR-19-00004548
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
RONNIE MARIE LAFORGE
RULING
on Application s.8 of the Charter
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE T. CAREY
on August 18, 2020, at WINDSOR, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
R. Pollock
Counsel for the Federal Crown
F. Miller
Counsel for R. Laforge
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
ENTERED ON PAGE
RULING
1
LEGEND
[sic] Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically
Transcript Ordered:
..............................August 18, 2020
Transcript to Judge for Approval:
..............August 24, 2020
Transcript Completed:
.........................November 9, 2020
Ordering Party Notified:
......................November 9, 2020
TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2020
R U L I N G
CAREY, J. (Orally):
So, there are four applications before this court in the matter of Ronnie Laforge. This application is framed as whether the applicant’s rights under Section 8 of the Charter were violated by the covert, warrantless, electronic recording of the person’s going toward, entering into, and leaving the applicant’s apartment.
The applicant relies on - largely on the Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Yu 2019 ONCA 942, 2019, ONCA at page 942 and various paragraphs of that decision are emphasized, but the gist of the decision that is for the purpose in this case is found in paragraphs 81 through 94 of the case. Where the court concluded, and I quote,
“Accordingly, the appellants’ expectation of privacy with respect to the common areas is further reduced given the possibility that property management could consent to police entry. The appellants had a reasonable expectation of privacy, albeit on the low end of the spectrum.”
The Crown relies on the case of the Superior Court of R. v. Brewster, 2016 ONSC 8038 to find that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy because the law at that time, in 2018, reflected Justice Code’s thinking in Brewster.
The Applicant counters with the decision of the Court of Appeal in R. v. White, 2015 ONCA 508, [2015] OJ No. 3563. And in that case at paragraph 52 the court wrote:
“In my view, the trial judge’s conclusion that the respondent had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of his condominium building is correct. It follows that Detective Hill conducted a search when he entered the respondent’s building surreptitiously on December 10, 2010,” and dates in January of 2011.
That court then concluded that Detective Hill’s search has violated the respondent’s right under s.8 of the Charter.
Given those previous cases I conclude that even accepting that a reasonable person would be informed by case law I accept that the Court of Appeal case in White prevails over the Superior Court decision in Brewster.
The facts in this case, as set out in the two factums, not really in dispute. There were signs in the building that the building was under surveillance. There was a consent of the building management to surreptitious installation of a camera right in front of the door of the applicant. The fact that the applicant was a resident and on the lease of this apartment all satisfy me that she had both standing to bring this application and did have a reasonable expectation of privacy to her apartment.
I am satisfied that the Yu decision is the law in Ontario and accordingly, that the surreptitious installation of the camera by the state was not covered by the – a warning on the sign, and the consent of the property management did not vitiate the need for a warrant for the installation of the camera.
Accordingly, I do find grounds for a declaration that the applicant’s rights under s.8 of the Charter were violated by the covert, warrantless, electronic recording of the persons entering into and leaving the applicant’s apartment over the period of 60 days that that camera was there.
I, Joan Maureen Demarco, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of HMQ. v. Ronnie LAFORGE, in the Superior Court of Justice, held at 245 Windsor Avenue, Windsor, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 0899_245_CRTRM4_20200818_083946__10_CAREYT.dcr and which have been certified in Form 1.
November 9, 2020
Joan Demarco
Court Reporter/Certified Transcriptionist
For Transcript Ordered, Transcript Completed, & Ordering Party Notified:
Press END button to take you to the end of line