Case information

Charter of Rights — Environmental law — Offences — Test to apply to govern admissibility of statements — Whether applicants’ Charter rights under s. 7 (right to life, liberty and security of the person) and s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) were violated — Whether the approach adopted by the courts in British Columbia is a misinterpretation of this Court’s decision in R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24 — Whether there is confusion in the law that needs to be resolved by this Court — Whether there is an issue of public importance raised.

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.

In response to a significant discharge of mine waste into the environment, the applicants, as operators of the corporate defendant, Banks Island Gold, were charged along with the corporation and others, with contraventions of both provincial and federal environmental legislation. Four officers flew over the relevant sites, confirming that spills had occurred at each. After landing, they visited the two sites, obtained samples, and then took a joint statement from the applicants, Mr. Meckert and Mr. Mossman. A voir dire was held to determine whether the observational evidence gathered on the visit, the Spill Report, and the statements taken on two occasions should be excluded on the basis that they had been obtained in breach of the applicants’ Charter rights. The trial judge applied a contextual approach consistent with R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24, to determine whether Charter breaches had occurred, and concluded that some of the evidence was admissible. Mr. Mossman was convicted on two counts. Mr. Meckert was acquitted on all counts. On summary conviction appeal, the Crown was successful and most of the applicants’ claims were rejected however, they were partially successful in having the verdicts set aside and a new trial ordered. The judge hearing the appeal to the BC Supreme Court agreed with the contextual framework used by the trial judge to assess Charter breaches, and found he had correctly admitted the observational evidence and the Spill Report. However, the appeal judge found that the trial judge erred in admitting portions of the first statement, and that the second statement should have been admitted. The applicants sought further review by the Court of Appeal, but leave to appeal was denied.