Case information

Charter of Rights — Search and seizure — Whether use of pole camera to conduct warrantless surveillance of driveway and façade of accused’s residence implicates s. 8 of the Charter if surveillance comprises automatic digital recording over a long period of time and includes data retention, search capability and possibly camera zoom and panning capability — Whether reasonable expectation of privacy analysis in R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, only applies to surveillance action that is a time limited snapshot or a passerby type of privacy invasion — Whether analysis in Tessling applicable to surveillance for a period of days, weeks or months and that produces a permanent and thereafter searchable digital record — Whether Tessling supports a judicial authorization requirement for pole cameras?

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.

Police conducted surveillance of Mr. Hoang’s residence and a parking spot he rented in a different location. They mounted a pole camera on public space recording the yard and driveway in front of the residence. After police observed Mr. Hoang’s conduct at the parking spot, they obtained warrants, searched a vehicle in the parking spot, and seized narcotics, cash, a shotgun and ammunition. The trial judge dismissed a motion to exclude the evidence for breach of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Hoang was convicted of possession for the purposes of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000, and unsafe storage of a firearm and ammunition. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the convictions.