R. v. Paterson

R. v. Paterson

Section 11(7) CDSA is constitutional because (1) criminal law objectives include public safety and removal of contraband, not solely prosecution; (2) exigent circumstances exception to prior authorization extends beyond preservation of evidence to include contraband removal and safety concerns; and (3) statutory and constitutional safeguards (Crown burden to justify warrantless searches, objective/subjective exigency test and reporting requirements) provide sufficient accountability, so s.11(7) does not violate s.8 Charter.

Citation
2012 BCSC 2138
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Brendan Ward Paterson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter Challenge to CDSA S.11(7) / Trial (judge Alone); Mid Trial Constitutional Application/voir Dire
Outcome
Application dismissed; s.11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act held constitutional
Legal Topics
Section 11(7) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Exigent Circumstances Exception, Warrantless Searches, No Case Seizures, Overbreadth and Arbitrariness, Accountability and Reporting Requirements, Precedent R. V. Tse
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Charter Litigation Evidence Law Section 11(7) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Section 8 Charter Unreasonable Search and Seizure Exigent Circumstances Exception +5 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Brendan Ward Paterson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter Challenge to CDSA S.11(7) / Trial (judge Alone); Mid Trial Constitutional Application/voir Dire

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.11(7) CDSA contravenes s.8 Charter by authorizing warrantless entry and seizure
  2. 2 Whether s.11(7) improperly authorizes 'no case' seizures (seizures when no prosecution is contemplated)
  3. 3 Whether exigent circumstances exception is limited to preservation of evidence or includes public safety/contraband removal

Ratio Decidendi

Section 11(7) CDSA is constitutional because (1) criminal law objectives include public safety and removal of contraband, not solely prosecution; (2) exigent circumstances exception to prior authorization extends beyond preservation of evidence to include contraband removal and safety concerns; and (3) statutory and constitutional safeguards (Crown burden to justify warrantless searches, objective/subjective exigency test and reporting requirements) provide sufficient accountability, so s.11(7) does not violate s.8 Charter.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; s.11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act held constitutional

Orders

  • Application for declaration that s.11(7) CDSA is of no force and effect dismissed