



COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Buckley, 2015 ONCA 364

DATE: 20150521

DOCKET: C58906

Hoy A.C.J.O., Doherty and Benotto JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Danielle Buckley

Appellant

Misha Feldmann, for the appellant

Cindy Afonso, for the respondent

Heard:  May 19, 2015

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Leitch
    of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 3, 2014.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The reasons of the trial judge are adequate.  She reviewed the evidence
    at length.  She accepted the officers evidence as to the purpose of his
    search.  That evidence was not controverted.

[2]

As to the search of the vehicle, the appellant accepts that there will
    be cases where a search of the glove box and console for the relevant documents
    (insurance, ownership and registration) will be lawful, but argues that on
    these facts the search could not be justified.

[3]

We need not explore the meaning of the dicta in
Belnavis
, at
    para. 28, relied on by the Crown to support his position.  In our view, even if
    the search could be said to constitute a violation of the appellants s. 8
    rights, the evidence could not be excluded under s. 24(2).

[4]

On the trial judges findings, which we accept for this purpose, the
    officer acted in good faith and in an effort to help the appellant.  The
    assumed breach of s. 8 was an isolated act in an otherwise entirely proper
    interaction between the officer and the appellant.  The police conduct falls at
    the very low end of the blameworthiness scale.

[5]

The seriousness of the violation of the appellants rights is also
    minimal.  Her privacy interest in the inside of the console and glove box of a
    car she did not own and was not allowed to drive can only be described as
    minimal.  This factor does not favour intrusion.

[6]

The third
Grant
factor, as always, favours admission,
    especially given the centrality of the seized evidence to the charge.

[7]

The evidence could not be excluded under s. 24(2).  The appeal is
    dismissed.


