R. v. Goddard

R. v. Goddard

On the facts the accused did not establish a subjective or objective reasonable expectation of privacy in the corridor or in the informational content of the security footage because the building was a publically funded, high‑traffic shelter with non‑exclusive use of the corridor and a security purpose to the cameras; therefore s.8 was not engaged and seizure without a warrant did not constitute a Charter breach.

Citation
2023 BCSC 383
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: John Donald Goddard
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter S.8 Voir Dire Regarding Warrantless Seizure of Security Footage / Voir Dire
Outcome
Accused's Charter s.8 application dismissed; court finds no s.8 infringement
Legal Topics
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Warrantless Seizure, Security Camera Surveillance, Informational Privacy
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Privacy Law Evidence Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Warrantless Seizure Security Camera Surveillance +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

John Donald Goddard

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter S.8 Voir Dire Regarding Warrantless Seizure of Security Footage / Voir Dire

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had a subjective and objective reasonable expectation of privacy in the corridor outside his unit and in the information yielded by security camera footage
  2. 2 Whether seizure of the footage by police without a warrant constituted a search under s.8 of the Charter and thus breached the accused's rights

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts the accused did not establish a subjective or objective reasonable expectation of privacy in the corridor or in the informational content of the security footage because the building was a publically funded, high‑traffic shelter with non‑exclusive use of the corridor and a security purpose to the cameras; therefore s.8 was not engaged and seizure without a warrant did not constitute a Charter breach.

Court Disposition

Accused's Charter s.8 application dismissed; court finds no s.8 infringement

Orders

  • Accused's application that seizure of security footage violated s.8 is dismissed
  • No exclusionary remedy under s.8 ordered; footage may be relied on by Crown