R. v. Perkins

R. v. Perkins

Leave to amend was denied because the proposed amendments were raised after the court's explicit pre-hearing direction and Criminal Rules deadlines, lacked evidentiary foundation, would cause significant delay to a scheduled 19‑day trial (at day 13), and one of the new arguments (night-warrant challenge) had no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 BCSC 311
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Corey Jim Perkins
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial/voir Dire on Charter and Warrants; Application to Amend Notice of Application
Outcome
Application for leave to amend denied; amended application dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, Warrants, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Night Search Warrants, Pre Hearing Conference and Notice Requirements, Amendment of Notice of Application, Detention/continued Detention of Seized Goods
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Search and Seizure Procedure Charter S.8 Search and Seizure Warrants Controlled Drugs and Substances Act +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Corey Jim Perkins

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial/voir Dire on Charter and Warrants; Application to Amend Notice of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the notice of application to add issues about continued detention of seized goods and night search technique
  2. 2 Whether CDSA telewarrants are subject to Criminal Code s.488 night-warrant prerequisites via s.487.1
  3. 3 Whether any procedural failure to renew detention of goods would entitle the accused to exclusion or other remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was denied because the proposed amendments were raised after the court's explicit pre-hearing direction and Criminal Rules deadlines, lacked evidentiary foundation, would cause significant delay to a scheduled 19‑day trial (at day 13), and one of the new arguments (night-warrant challenge) had no reasonable prospect of success in light of binding appellate authority (Dueck) interpreting CDSA s.11 to permit execution at any time.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend denied; amended application dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • Leave to amend the notice of application is denied
  • Application for leave to amend dismissed in its entirety