Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of rights – Criminal law – Search and seizure – General warrant – Production of cannabis and possession of cannabis for purpose of trafficking – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in limiting its analysis to first two statutory conditions clearly provided for in s. 487.01(1)(a), (b) and (c), (3) and (5.1) of Criminal Code – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in proceeding immediately to analysis under s. 24(2) of Charter after accepting applicant’s first argument by holding that trial judge had erred in law in failing to find violation of s. 8 of Charter – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in its analysis under s. 24(2) of Charter in showing deference to conclusions of trial judge, who had conducted subsidiary analysis regarding exclusion of evidence even though he had found that Charter had not been violated.

Daniel Lepage, the applicant, was convicted of production of cannabis and of possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking. The execution of a general warrant issued under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code resulted in the discovery, in a building owned by Mr. Lepage, of a secret laboratory devoted entirely to the production of cannabis. At trial, Mr. Lepage challenged the admissibility of the evidence obtained under the general warrant and a search telewarrant. The trial judge held that there had been no violation of s. 8 of the Charter and that even if there had been one, he would not have excluded the evidence following an analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter. He also held that the method used was not unreasonable, because, inter alia, the location of the search was a place of business and not a residence. The Court of Appeal found that Mr. Lepage had been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter. However, it held, applying the principles laid down in R. v. Côté, 2011 SCC 46, that the evidence so obtained should not be excluded.