R. v. Haevischer

R. v. Haevischer

The court held that it may defer consideration of the constitutional validity of s.487.11 until after determining as a factual matter whether exigent circumstances existed; if exigent circumstances are not established, the s.8 breach is made out and the constitutionality question is unnecessary and would not be relevant to the s.24(2) analysis in this case.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1956
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Cody Rae Haevischer; Accused: Matthew James Johnston; Accused: Quang Vinh Thang Le
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Pre Trial Charter/voir Dire Applications / Pre Trial Voir Dire and Applications (ruling on Procedural Issue)
Outcome
Court accepted Crown's proposed procedural approach and declined to decide the constitutional validity of s.487.11 at the voir dire stage; constitutional issue deferred pending determination of exigent circumstances.
Legal Topics
Charter S.8, Charter S.24(2), Criminal Code S.487.11, Exigent Circumstances, Warrantless Search, Exclusion of Evidence, Constitutionality
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Search and Seizure Charter S.8 Charter S.24(2) Criminal Code S.487.11 Exigent Circumstances +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Cody Rae Haevischer

Accused

Matthew James Johnston

Accused

Quang Vinh Thang Le

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Pre Trial Charter/voir Dire Applications / Pre Trial Voir Dire and Applications (ruling on Procedural Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may defer consideration of the constitutional validity of s.487.11 until after determining whether exigent circumstances existed
  2. 2 Whether the warrantless entries and searches breached s.8 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether s.487.11 is relevant to a s.24(2) exclusion analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it may defer consideration of the constitutional validity of s.487.11 until after determining as a factual matter whether exigent circumstances existed; if exigent circumstances are not established, the s.8 breach is made out and the constitutionality question is unnecessary and would not be relevant to the s.24(2) analysis in this case.

Court Disposition

Court accepted Crown's proposed procedural approach and declined to decide the constitutional validity of s.487.11 at the voir dire stage; constitutional issue deferred pending determination of exigent circumstances.

Orders

  • Voir dire to commence January 7, 2013 for five days confined to police implementation of s.487.11
  • Argument to be heard January 21-22, 2013 on (i) whether exigent circumstances existed for reliance on s.487.11 and (ii) if not, whether evidence is admissible under s.24(2)