R. v. Fleet

R. v. Fleet

On the balance of probabilities the Crown established reasonable investigative grounds to attend the residence, the accused failed to prove a reasonable expectation of privacy in that dwelling, no s.8 or s.9 Charter breaches were established, the breath demand and subsequent refusal were lawfully obtained and not tainted by any breach, and therefore the s.24(2) remedy excluding evidence was not warranted; application dismissed.

Citation
2015 NSPC 92
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/defendant: David Richard K. Fleet
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Decision (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application dismissed; voir dire finds no Charter breach and evidence need not be excluded.
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure (s.8), Arbitrary Detention (s.9), Section 7 Principles of Fundamental Justice, Warrantless Entry and Feeney Warrants, Consent to Enter, Breath Demand and Refusal (s.254), Exclusionary Remedy (s.24(2))
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Procedural Law Search and Seizure (s.8) Arbitrary Detention (s.9) Section 7 Principles of Fundamental Justice Warrantless Entry and Feeney Warrants Consent to Enter +2 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

David Richard K. Fleet

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Decision (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police entry into 45A Mountain Avenue violated s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises
  3. 3 Whether the accused was arbitrarily detained in breach of s.9

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Crown established reasonable investigative grounds to attend the residence, the accused failed to prove a reasonable expectation of privacy in that dwelling, no s.8 or s.9 Charter breaches were established, the breath demand and subsequent refusal were lawfully obtained and not tainted by any breach, and therefore the s.24(2) remedy excluding evidence was not warranted; application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; voir dire finds no Charter breach and evidence need not be excluded.

Orders

  • Accused's Charter application dismissed
  • Proceed to trial on charges contrary to Criminal Code ss.252(1), 253(1)(a) and 254(5)