R. v. Hape

R. v. Hape
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2007-06-07
Neutral citation
2007 SCC 26
Report
[2007] 2 SCR 292
Case number
31125
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise; Rothstein, Marshall
On appeal from
Ontario
Subjects
Constitutional law
Statutes
Notes
SCC Case Information: 31125
Decision Content
R. v. Hape, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292, 2007 SCC 26
Lawrence Richard Hape Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
Attorney General of Ontario Intervener
Indexed as: R. v. Hape
Neutral citation: 2007 SCC 26.
File No.: 31125.
2006: October 12; 2007: June 7.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Application — Searches and seizures outside Canada — Whether Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to extraterritorial searches and seizures conducted by Canadian police officers — If not, whether evidence obtained abroad ought to be excluded because its admission would render trial unfair — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7 , 8 , 11 (d), 24(2) , 32 .
Legislation — Interpretation — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Scope of extraterritorial application of Charter — Presumption of conformity with international law.
RCMP officers commenced an investigation of the accused, a Canadian businessman, for suspected money laundering activities. They sought permission from the Turks and Caicos Islands authorities to conduct parts of their investigation on the Islands where the accused’s investment company is located. Detective Superintendent L of the Turks and Caicos Police Force, who was in charge of criminal investigations on the Islands, agreed to allow the RCMP to continue the investigation on Turks and Caicos territory, but warned the officers that he would be in charge and that the RCMP would be working under his authority. During a one‑year period, the RCMP officers conducted searches of the accused’s office on the Islands and on each occasion L was with them. At trial, the Crown adduced documentary evidence that the police had gathered from the records of the accused’s office. The RCMP officers testified that they were aware there were no warrants authorizing the perimeter searches of the accused’s office but that they had relied on L’s expertise and advice regarding the legalities of investigations conducted on the Islands. They also testified that they had understood warrants to be in place for the covert entries and had read a document they understood to be a warrant authorizing the overt entries. However, no warrant was entered into evidence at trial. The accused sought to have the documentary evidence excluded, pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , on the basis that the evidence was obtained in violation of his right under s. 8 of the Charter to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. He submitted that the Charter applies to the actions of the RCMP officers in the course of their searches and seizures at his office, notwithstanding that those actions took place outside Canada. The trial judge held that the Charter did not apply, dismissed the application and convicted the accused of two counts of money laundering. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Per McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron JJ.: The Charter does not generally apply to searches and seizures in other countries. Rather, the only reasonable approach is to apply the law of the state in which the activities occur, subject to the Charter ’s fair trial safeguards and to the limits on comity that may prevent Canadian officers from participating in activities that, though authorized by the laws of another state, would cause Canada to be in violation of its international obligations in respect of human rights. [88] [90]
While Parliament has clear constitutional authority to pass legislation governing conduct by Canadians or non‑Canadians outside Canada, its ability to pass extraterritorial legislation is informed by the binding customary principles of territorial sovereign equality and non‑intervention, by the comity of nations, and by the limits of international law to the extent that they are not incompatible with domestic law. By virtue of parliamentary sovereignty, it is open to Parliament to enact legislation that is inconsistent with those principles, but in so doing it would violate international law and offend the comity of nations. Since it is a well‑established principle of statutory interpretation that legislation will be presumed to conform to international law, in interpreting the scope of application of the Charter , a court should seek to ensure compliance with Canada’s binding obligations under international law where the express words are capable of supporting such a construction. [53] [56] [68]
Canadian law, including the Charter , cannot be enforced in another state’s territory without the other state’s consent. This conclusion is consistent with international law and is also dictated by the words of the Charter itself. Section 32(1) puts the burden of complying with the Charter on Parliament, the government of Canada, the provincial legislatures and the provincial governments. The provision defines not only to whom the Charter applies, but also in what circumstances it applies to those actors. The fact that a state actor is involved is not in itself sufficient. The activity in question must also fall within the “matters within the authority of” Parliament or the legislature of each province. A criminal investigation in the territory of another state cannot be a matter within the authority of Parliament or the provincial legislatures because they have no jurisdiction to authorize enforcement abroad. Under international law, each state’s exercise of sovereignty within its territory is dependent on the right to be free from intrusion by other states in its affairs and the duty of every other state to refrain from interference. In some cases, the evidence may establish that the foreign state consented to the exercise of Canadian enforcement jurisdiction within its territory. Where the host state consents, the Charter can apply to the activities of Canadian officers in foreign investigations. In such a case, the investigation would be a matter within the authority of Parliament and would fall within the scope of s. 32(1) . [45] [69] [94] [106]
While Charter standards cannot be applied to an investigation in another country involving Canadian officers, there is no impediment to extraterritorial adjudicative jurisdiction pursuant to which evidence gathered abroad may be excluded from a Canadian trial, as this jurisdiction simply attaches domestic consequences to foreign events. Individuals in Canada who choose to engage in criminal activities that cross Canada’s territorial limits should expect to be governed by the laws of the state in which they find themselves and in which they conduct financial affairs, but individual rights cannot be completely disregarded in the interests of transborder co-operation. Where the Crown seeks at trial to adduce evidence gathered abroad, the Charter provisions governing trial processes in Canada ensure that the appropriate balance is struck and that due consideration is shown for the rights of an accused being investigated abroad. Moreover, in an era characterized by transnational criminal activity, the principle of comity cannot be invoked to allow Canadian authorities to participate in investigative activities sanctioned by foreign law that would place Canada in violation of its international obligations in respect of human rights. Deference to the foreign law ends where clear violations of international law and fundamental human rights begin. [52] [96] [99‑101]
The methodology for determining whether the Charter applies to a foreign investigation can be summarized as follows. The first stage is to determine whether the activity in question falls under s. 32(1) such that the Charter applies to it. At this stage, two questions reflecting the two components of s. 32(1) must be asked. First, is the conduct at issue that of a Canadian state actor? Second, if the answer is yes, it may be necessary, depending on the facts of the case, to determine whether there is an exception to the principle of sovereignty that would justify the application of the Charter to the extraterritorial activities of the state actor. In most cases, there will be no such exception and the Charter will not apply. The inquiry would then move to the second stage, at which the court must determine whether evidence obtained through the foreign investigation ought to be excluded at trial because its admission would render the trial unfair. [113]
In the instant case, the police officers were clearly government actors to whom, prima facie, the Charter would apply, but the searches carried out in Turks and Caicos were not a matter within the authority of Parliament. It is not reasonable to suggest that Turks and Caicos consented to Canadian extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction. The trial judge’s findings clearly indicate that Turks and Caicos controlled the investigation at all times, repeatedly making it known to the RCMP officers that, at each step, the activities were being carried out pursuant to their authority alone. [103] [115‑116]
The circumstances do not demonstrate that this is a case where admission of the evidence would violate the accused’s right to a fair trial. The documents obtained from the accused’s office were not conscriptive evidence, and the actions of the RCMP officers were not unreasonable or unfair as they were acting under the authority of the Turks and Caicos police and they had a genuine and reasonable belief that they were complying with Turks and Caicos law. The RCMP officers acted in good faith at all times and their actions were not improper. The way in which the evidence was obtained in no way undermines its reliability. Moreover, since the accused had chosen to conduct business in Turks and Caicos, his reasonable expectation should have been that Turks and Caicos law would apply to the investigation. Although no search warrants were admitted at trial, no evidence was adduced indicating that the searches and seizures were conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of Turks and Caicos law. There is no basis for concluding that the procedural requirements for a lawful search and seizure under Turks and Caicos law fail to meet basic standards commonly accepted by free and democratic societies. [120‑121]
Per Bastarache, Abella and Rothstein JJ.: While the terms of s. 32(1) do not extend the application of the Charter to the actions of foreign officials, they do not imply that the Charter cannot apply to Canadian police officials acting abroad. Section 32(1) defines who acts, not where they act. Since s. 32(1) does not distinguish between actions taken on Canadian soil and actions taken abroad, it includes all actions of Canadian police officers. Canadian officers conducting an investigation in another country must abide by standards set for actions taken in Canada where the foreign state takes no part in the action and does not subject the action to its laws. Where the host state takes part in the action by subjecting Canadian authorities to its laws, the Charter still applies to Canadian officers and there will be no Charter violation where the Canadian officers abide by the laws of the host state if those laws and procedures are consistent with the fundamental principles emanating from the Charter . The Charter thus applies extraterritorially, but the obligations it creates in the circumstances will depend on the nature of the right at risk, the nature of the action of the police, the involvement of foreign authorities and the application of foreign laws. Since there is obviously consent by a foreign authority to the participation of Canadian officers in all cases where they operate in another country, consent is not a useful criterion to determine Charter application. [159‑161] [176] [178]
In any challenge to the conduct of Canadian officials investigating abroad, the onus will be on the claimant to demonstrate that the difference between fundamental human rights protection given by the local law and that afforded under the Charter is inconsistent with basic Canadian values; the onus will then shift to the government to justify its involvement in the activity. In many cases, differences between protections guaranteed by Charter principles and the protections offered by foreign procedures will simply be justified by the need for Canada to be involved in fighting transnational crime and the need to respect the sovereign authority of foreign states. On account of this, courts are permitted to apply a rebuttable presumption of Charter compliance where the Canadian officials were acting pursuant to valid foreign laws and procedures. Unless it is shown that those laws or procedures are substantially inconsistent with the fundamental principles emanating from the Charter , they will not give rise to a breach of a Charter right. This is the most principled and practical way to strike an appropriate balance between effective participation by Canadian officers in fighting transnational crime and respect for fundamental human rights. [174]
In this case, the Charter applied to the search and seizures conducted by the RCMP in the Turks and Caicos Islands, but the accused has not established a breach of s. 8 of the Charter . The Canadian authorities were operating under L’s authority and the local laws applied to the investigation. The accused led no evidence to suggest there were any differences between the fundamental human rights protections available under Turks and Caicos search and seizure laws and the Charter protections guaranteed under Canadian law that would raise serious concerns. The seizure of documents was thus reasonable in the context. [126] [179]
Per Binnie J.: This appeal must fail because the accused cannot bring his case within the requirements from Cook, namely (1) that the impugned act falls within s. 32(1) of the Charter and (2) that the application of the Charter to the actions of the Canadian police in the Turks and Caicos Islands does not, in this particular case, interfere with the sovereign authority of the foreign state and thereby generate an objectionable extraterritorial effect. The searches and seizures of the accused’s bank records in the Islands were carried out under the authority of the local police in conformity with local powers of search and seizure. No prejudice to the accused’s right to a fair trial in Canada has been demonstrated. The accused, having chosen to do his banking in the Islands, can be taken to have accepted the degree of privacy afforded by the law of that jurisdiction. It is clear from the record that superimposing the Canadian law of search and seizure on top of that of Turks and Caicos would be unworkable. [181]
To hold that any extraterritorial effect of the Charter is objectionable would effectively overrule Cook and would further limit the potential extraterritorial application of the Charter . Premature pronouncements that restrict the application of the Charter to Canadian officials operating abroad in relation to Canadian citizens should be avoided. Cook’s “objectionable extraterritorial effect” principle should be retained, while leaving the door open to future developments in assessing the extraterritorial application of the Charter . [182‑183] [189]
Cases Cited
By LeBel J.
Distinguished: R. v. Cook, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; considered: R. v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; R. v. Terry, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841; referred to: Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] 1 Q.B. 529; The Ship “North” v. The King (1906), 37 S.C.R. 385; Reference as to Whether Members of the Military or Naval Forces of the United States of America are Exempt from Criminal Proceedings in Canadian Criminal Courts, [1943] S.C.R. 483; Reference as to Powers to Levy Rates on Foreign Legations and High Commissioners’ Residences, [1943] S.C.R. 208; Saint John (Municipality of) v. Fraser‑Brace Overseas Corp., [1958] S.C.R. 263; Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 675, leave to appeal refused, [2005] 1 S.C.R. vi; Mack v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 737, leave to appeal refused, [2003] 1 S.C.R. xiii; Gouvernement de la République démocratique du Congo v. Venne, [1971] S.C.R. 997; Reference re Newfoundland Continental Shelf, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 86; Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 1; Customs Régime between Germany and Austria (1931), P.C.I.J. Ser. A/B, No. 41; Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v. United States) (1928), 2 R.I.A.A. 829; Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 14; Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; The Parlement Belge (1880), 5 P.D. 197; Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; United States of America v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; Zingre v. The Queen, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392; Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; Libman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; Abbasi v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2002] E.W.J. No. 4947 (QL), [2002] EWCA Civ. 1598; Daniels v. White, [1968] S.C.R. 517; Ordon Estate v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269, 2002 SCC 62; Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7; Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4; The Case of the S.S. “Lotus” (1927), P.C.I.J. Ser. A, No. 10; United States of America v. Cotroni, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577.
By Bastarache J.
Considered: R. v. Cook, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; referred to: R. v. Terry, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841; R. v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; Libman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178; R. v. Godoy, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 311; R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, 2004 SCC 52; Dedman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; R. v. Evans, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; United States of America v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7.
By Binnie J.
Applied: R. v. Cook, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; referred to: R. v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; R. v. Terry, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 7 to 14 , 8 , 9 , 10 (a), (b), 11 (d), 24 , 32 .
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 9 .
Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24, ss. 6(1) , 8 .
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, ss. 6(2) , 7 , 7(3.7) to 7(3.75) , (4.1) , 117.02(1) , (2) , 199(2) , 254(2) to (4) , 269.1(1) , 462 , 487 to 489 , 495(1) , (2) .
Statute of Westminster, 1931 (U.K.), 22 Geo. 5, c. 4 [reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 27], s. 3.
Treaties and Other International Instruments
Charter of the United Nations, Can. T.S. 1945 No. 7, art. 2(1).
United Nations. General Assembly. Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co‑operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, GA Res. 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970.
Authors Cited
Akehurst, Michael. “Jurisdiction in International Law” (1972‑1973), 46 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 145.
Bentley, Eric. “Toward an International Fourth Amendment: Rethinking Searches and Seizures Abroad After Verdugo‑Urquidez” (1994), 27 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 329.
Brownlie, Ian. Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Canada. Royal Canadian Mounted Police. International Peacekeeping Branch Review, 2004/2005, 2006 (online: www.rcmp‑grc.gc.ca/peace_operations/review2004‑2005_e.pdf).
Canada. Royal Canadian Mounted Police. RCMP Fact Sheet, International Operations Branch, October 2005 (updated February 2007) (online: www.rcmp‑grc.gc.ca/factsheets/fact_iob_e.htm).
Cassese, Antonio. International Law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Côté, Pierre‑André. The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 3rd ed. Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 2000.
Coughlan, Stephen, et al. “Global Reach, Local Grasp: Constructing Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the Age of Globalization” (2007), 6 C.J.L.T. 29.
Currie, Robert J. “Charter Without Borders? The Supreme Court of Canada, Transnational Crime and Constitutional Rights and Freedoms” (2004), 27 Dal. L.J. 235.
Harvie, Robert A., and Hamar Foster. “Let the Yanks Do It? The Charter , The Criminal Law and Evidence on a ‘Silver Platter’” (2001), 59 Advocate 71.
Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada, vol. 2, loose‑leaf ed. Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1997 (loose-leaf updated 2006, release 1).
Kindred, Hugh M., and Phillip M. Saunders. International Law, Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada, 7th ed. Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2006.
Kittichaisaree, Kriangsak. International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Mann, F. A. “The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited After Twenty Years”. In W. Michael Reisman, ed., Jurisdiction in International Law. Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 1999, 139.
Oppenheim’s International Law, vol. 1, 9th ed. By Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts. London: Longman, 1996.
Pechota, Vratislav. “Equality: Political Justice in an Unequal World”. In R. St.J. Macdonald and Douglas M. Johnston, eds., The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine and Theory. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983, 453.
Reydams, Luc. Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Sullivan, Ruth. Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 4th ed. Markham, Ont.: Butterworths, 2002.
Wildhaber, Luzius. “Sovereignty and International Law”. In R. St.J. Macdonald and Douglas M. Johnston, eds., The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine and Theory. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983, 425.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Doherty, Feldman and LaForme JJ.A.) (2005), 201 O.A.C. 126, [2005] O.J. No. 3188 (QL), upholding the accused’s convictions entered by Juriansz J., [2002] O.J. No. 5044 (QL). Appeal dismissed.
Alan D. Gold and Vanessa Arsenault, for the appellant.
John North and Robert W. Hubbard, for the respondent.
Michal Fairburn, for the intervener.
The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron JJ. was delivered by
LeBel J. —
I. Introduction
A. Overview
1 At issue in this appeal is whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to extraterritorial searches and seizures by Canadian police officers. The appellant, Lawrence Richard Hape, is a Canadian businessman. He was convicted of two counts of money laundering contrary to s. 9 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 . At his trial, the Crown adduced documentary evidence that the police had gathered from the records of the appellant’s investment company while searching its premises in the Turks and Caicos Islands. The appellant sought to have that evidence excluded, pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter , on the basis that the Charter applies to the actions of the Canadian police officers who conducted the searches and seizures and that the evidence was obtained in violation of his right under s. 8 of the Charter to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. For the reasons that follow, I would affirm the convictions and dismiss the appeal.
B. Background
2 In the spring of 1996, the RCMP commenced an investigation of the appellant for suspected money laundering activities. Sergeant Nicholson, an undercover operative, contacted the appellant in October 1996 posing as someone interested in laundering proceeds of narcotics trafficking. On February 2, 1998, Sergeant Nicholson provided C$252,000 of “sting money” to the appellant on the understanding that the funds would be laundered through the appellant’s investment company, the British West Indies Trust Company (“BWIT”), located in the Turks and Caicos Islands, and transferred to an account in the Netherlands. Unbeknownst to the appellant, the RCMP had set up the account. Sergeant Nicholson gave the appellant a further US$80,000 on November 11, 1998, instructing him to send the funds to the same account in the Netherlands. The RCMP hoped to obtain documentation confirming the transfers and determine whether the BWIT was involved in other money laundering activities.
3 RCMP officers sought permission to conduct parts of their investigation in Turks and Caicos. Detective Superintendent Lessemun of the Turks and Caicos Police Force was in charge of criminal investigations on the Islands. In November 1997, he met with the two Canadian officers in charge of the RCMP’s investigation, Detective Sergeant Boyle and Corporal Flynn. He agreed to allow the RCMP to continue the investigation on Turks and Caicos territory, but warned the officers that he would be in charge and that the RCMP would be working under his authority. Because the appellant was well known on the Islands and Detective Superintendent Lessemun was concerned that he could not trust all Turks and Caicos police officers, the Canadian officers dealt exclusively with him while planning and preparing their operations.
4 The investigators planned a covert entry into the BWIT’s office for March 1998. RCMP technical experts assisted with the planning, which began in Canada using technical information provided by Detective Superintendent Lessemun. The experts traveled to the Turks and Caicos Islands in February 1998 to obtain information about the office’s door locks and burglar alarm systems.
5 Late in the nights of February 7 and 8, 1998, the RCMP officers and Detective Superintendent Lessemun surreptitiously entered the BWIT’s premises. The technical experts examined the office’s locks and alarm systems from outside the building. They recorded what they observed, using a video camera. Throughout this perimeter search, Detective Superintendent Lessemun was with the RCMP investigators as a lookout.
6 During the day on February 9, 1998, two RCMP technical experts entered the reception area of the BWIT’s office to observe what they could of the interior locks and alarm system. They entered the office under a ruse and spent a few minutes speaking with the receptionist.
7 There were no warrants authorizing the RCMP to enter the BWIT’s premises in February 1998. The RCMP investigators were aware of this, but they testified that they had relied on Detective Superintendent Lessemun’s expertise and advice regarding the legalities of investigations conducted on the Islands.
8 After the RCMP technical experts returned to Canada, they received further technical information from Detective Superintendent Lessemun to assist with the planning of the March 1998 covert entry. A briefing was held in the Bahamas on March 11, 1998, in preparation for the covert search. Present at the meeting were seven RCMP officers involved in the investigation and three American police officers. No Turks and Caicos officers were in attendance.
9 The investigators covertly entered the BWIT’s office twice on March 14, 1998, once in the early hours of the morning and once shortly before midnight. The RCMP technical experts opened the locked doors of the office to enable the investigators to enter it. Detective Superintendent Lessemun entered the office with what the RCMP officers understood to be a warrant. He then took up a position outside the building to provide security around the perimeter and stop any Turks and Caicos police officers who might come by from jeopardizing the operation. Inside the office, the RCMP investigators downloaded information contained in the company’s computer systems onto portable hard drives and electronically scanned documents from numerous client files, as well as company records and banking documents.
10 The RCMP officers testified at trial that they had understood separate warrants to be in place for each of the two covert entries of March 14, 1998. Officer Boyle said he saw a warrant for the first entry. Sergeant McDonagh, one of the technical experts, stated that after the first entry, but before the second, Detective Superintendent Lessemun had shown him a document that Sergeant McDonagh understood to be the warrant for the first entry. Sergeant McDonagh noted down the document’s terms. Both Officer Boyle and Sergeant McDonagh understood from Detective Superintendent Lessemun that a warrant had been obtained for the second entry, but neither had any notes on this point or remembered having seen it. No warrants were introduced into evidence at trial. The Crown sought to introduce copies of two Turks and Caicos warrants, one dated March 13 and the other March 14, 1998. The purported warrants, issued to Robert Conway Lessemun, authorized entry into the BWIT’s office to search for computer and office records linking Richard Hape to the laundering of proceeds of drug trafficking. The copies of the warrants had not been authenticated, and counsel for the appellant objected to their admission at trial.
11 RCMP officers returned to the Turks and Caicos Islands in February 1999. Beginning on February 16 and continuing over the next three days, six RCMP officers, along with Detective Superintendent Lessemun and three other Turks and Caicos police officers, entered the BWIT’s office and seized over one hundred banker’s boxes of records. Officer Boyle testified that he had read a document he understood to be a warrant authorizing the entry and seizure, and had passed it to the other officers to read. Again, no warrant was entered into evidence at trial.
12 When the search was complete, the RCMP officers began loading the seized records onto their airplane with the intention of bringing them back to Canada. Detective Superintendent Lessemun informed the officers that they could not remove the records from the Islands. The boxes were unloaded. At trial, there was some suggestion that a Turks and Caicos court order had prevented the officers from removing the evidence from the jurisdiction, but no such order was admitted as evidence.
13 The RCMP returned to the Turks and Caicos Islands in March and October 1999. In the presence of Turks and Caicos police officers, the RCMP officers scanned thousands of the seized documents in order to bring electronic copies of them back to Canada. Ultimately, a number of the documents seized during the search became exhibits at the appellant’s trial.
14 Money laundering charges were laid for the two transactions involving the funds Sergeant Nicholson had provided to the appellant. The appellant was also charged, along with a co-accused, Ross Beatty, with conspiring to launder funds. A lengthy and complex trial took place before Juriansz J. (as he then was) of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury. Before the trial started, the appellant brought a Charter application to exclude the documentary evidence obtained from the BWIT’s office on the basis of a violation of the s. 8 guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. The application was denied and the documents were admitted into evidence.
C. Judicial History
(1) Ontario Superior Court of Justice
15 The appellant called evidence on the s. 8 application. The Crown, taking the position that the Charter does not apply to searches and seizures conducted outside Canada and that the appellant had not established that he had standing to bring the application, sought a ruling on these two issues in advance of its decision on introducing evidence. Juriansz J. ruled on this application on January 17, 2002 ([2002] O.J. No. 3714 (QL)).
16 The application judge considered three decisions of this Court on the extraterritorial application of the Charter : R. v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562, R. v. Terry, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207, and R. v. Cook, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597. He noted that all those cases concerned the application of the s. 10 (b) right to counsel and that the question of the potential extraterritorial application of s. 8 might raise different issues. Relying on the majority decision in Cook, the application judge held that his task was to determine whether applying the Charter to the activities of the RCMP officers in Turks and Caicos would “interfere with the sovereign authority of the foreign state and thereby generate an objectionable extra-territorial effect” (para. 20).
17 In his argument before the application judge, the appellant resisted the characterization of the RCMP’s actions in the instant case as part of a “co-operative investigation”, within the meaning of Terry, with Turks and Caicos authorities, because the searches and seizures were carried out by the RCMP officers with little or no involvement of the Turks and Caicos police. The application judge rejected the argument that a “co-operative investigation” must involve relatively equal contributions from the participants (para. 24).
18 Juriansz J. made several key findings of fact that were relevant to his Charter ruling. He noted that Detective Superintendent Lessemun, who was with the Canadian police at all times, had played a role in the investigation by acting as a lookout, providing information, and obtaining warrants. The Turks and Caicos contributed police authority. The RCMP was required to seek and receive permission from Turks and Caicos authorities to conduct the investigation in that jurisdiction. The RCMP officers were operating under the authority of Detective Superintendent Lessemun. The fact that they were not permitted to remove the seized physical records from Turks and Caicos was a significant factor in the application judge’s conclusion that they were subject to Turks and Caicos authority. The application judge found that all the RCMP’s actions on the Turks and Caicos Islands were part of a “co-operative investigation” (para. 26).
19 As the next step in his analysis, Juriansz J. considered whether the application of the Charter to the “co-operative investigation” would result in an objectionable extraterritorial effect. The application judge found that the propriety and legality of the entries into the BWIT’s office were governed by Turks and Caicos criminal law and procedure and the supervisory authority of the Turks and Caicos courts. In light of that fact, he concluded that there was a potential conflict between the concurrent exercise of jurisdiction by Canada on the basis of nationality and by Turks and Caicos on the basis of territoriality. Juriansz J. held, as a result, that the Charter did not apply. He therefore dismissed the application without discussing whether the appellant had standing to bring the Charter application or whether the searches and seizures were conducted in accordance with the requirements of s. 8 .
20 The appellant had also applied under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings on the basis that the police conduct had contravened fundamental notions of justice and that the ensuing trial would undermine the integrity of the justice system. In the alternative, the appellant requested an order excluding from evidence 26 documents seized from the BWIT. In his ruling on this application dated January 18, 2002, Juriansz J. relied on the findings of fact he had made on the s. 8 application. He noted that the RCMP officers had believed there were warrants for the entries that took place in March 1998 and February 1999 and had believed their actions to be lawful under Turks and Caicos law. No evidence to the contrary had been called. The burden of proving that the operations of the Canadian officers had violated Turks and Caicos law rested on the appellant. In refusing to grant the stay, Juriansz J. gave the following explanation:
Considering that the applicant in this case has not established that the police conduct infringed a Charter right or was otherwise unlawful, and considering the police conduct as a whole, I have concluded that this is not one of those clearest of cases in which a stay ought to be granted.
Relying on Harrer and Terry, Juriansz J. stated that the overriding consideration was whether the admission of the evidence would result in an unfair trial. He reasoned that since the documents constituted real, non-conscriptive evidence, their reliability as evidence was not affected by the manner in which they were obtained. As the admission of the evidence would not therefore render the trial unfair, he refused to grant the exclusionary order.
21 On June 10, 2002, Juriansz J. found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts of money laundering ([2002] O.J. No. 5044 (QL)). The appellant was acquitted of the charge of conspiracy to launder funds.
(2) Ontario Court of Appeal
22 The appellant appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on numerous grounds, one of which was that Juriansz J. had erred in his rulings on ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter . The appeal from the ruling on s. 7 was not pursued at the oral hearing before the Court of Appeal, and the issue of trial fairness is not before this Court. The appellant also contested his sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment. The Crown cross-appealed on the trial judge’s refusal to make a forfeiture order.
23 The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: (2005), 201 O.A.C. 126. It held that the trial judge had made a finding of fact that the investigation was under the control of the Turks and Caicos authorities and that his finding was supported by the evidence. Referring to the decisions in Terry and Cook, the court concluded that the trial judge had correctly applied the law to his findings of fact. The Crown’s cross-appeal was also dismissed. The appellant obtained leave to appeal from that judgment.
II. Analysis
A. Issues
24 The sole issue in this appeal is whether s. 8 of the Charter applies to searches and seizures conducted by RCMP officers outside Canada. This issue requires the Court to consider the question of the extraterritorial application of the Charter . This in turn requires the Court to consider the more general question of the relationship between Canadian criminal and constitutional law, on the one hand, and public international law, on the other. In addition, although the issue is not before this Court, I feel that it will be helpful to comment on the use of ss. 7 and 11 (d) of the Charter to exclude evidence gathered outside Canada.
B. Positions of the Parties
(1) The Appellant
25 The appellant argues that the Charter applies to the actions of the RCMP officers in the course of their searches and seizures at the BWIT’s office, notwithstanding that those actions took place outside Canada. He submits that Canadian authorities are subject to the Charter even when operating outside the territorial boundaries of Canada and that it can be seen from the evide