Case information

Charter of Rights — Search and seizure — Remedy — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by intervening in correct conclusions of Superior Court on application of legal rules laid down by Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Araujo, 2000 SCC 65, and R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, in relation to failure by trial judge to review remainder of reasonable grounds, as amplified, that supported informations in support of search warrants of Agence du revenu du Québec, which failure resulted in verdicts of acquittal being entered without consideration of whole of evidence — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law by applying rule of automatic exclusion of evidence in criminal law without conducting analysis under s. 24(2) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law by endorsing indivisibility of various government agencies and organizations in applying concept that government entity must be responsible for violations of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, by any other government entity despite itself having used lawful means and not having committed violation.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The respondents B.T. Céramiques et al. were tried in the Court of Québec for alleged offences. They answered by denouncing the conduct of the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA], which, they alleged, had gathered evidence by misusing its tax audit powers to conduct a criminal investigation without their knowledge. The CRA had used that evidence to obtain search warrants and orders. The applicant, the Agence du revenu du Québec [ARQ], had obtained judicial authorizations to in turn seize evidence from offices of the CRA. B.T. Céramiques et al. sought to have that evidence excluded. The Court of Québec ordered that the evidence be excluded. It considered that the predominant purpose of the CRA’s audit had been to establish penal liability and that the rights of B.T. Céramiques et al. had been violated. The Superior Court allowed the appeal and rejected the exclusion of the evidence. It concluded that the Court of Québec had erred in several ways, including in its review of the ARQ’s conduct, which should not have been equated with that of the CRA. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. In its view, the Superior Court had, among other things, ascribed errors to the trial judge that were not in fact errors, and that it was therefore not open to the Superior Court to substitute its own assessment of the evidence for that of the trial judge.