Section 8 - Search or Seizure

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

8 Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

...

24 (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 13

30 (1) An animal welfare inspector who has reasonable grounds to believe that an animal is in distress and who is able to promptly find the owner or custodian of the animal may order the owner or custodian to take such action as may, in the opinion of the inspector, be necessary to relieve the animal of its distress, which may include, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, having the animal examined and treated by a veterinarian at the expense of the owner or custodian.

(2) The order shall be in writing and shall have printed or written thereon the content of subsections 38 (1), (3) and (5).

(3) The order shall specify the time within which any action required by the order shall be performed.

R. v. Norway Insulation Inc., 1995 CanLII 7050 (ON SC)

Section 8 of the Charter is violated where the search or seizure is unreasonable. Where the search or seizure is aimed at detecting criminal activity, as in the case at bar, the more strict the test is to establish that the search or seizure was reasonable.

In McKinlay, supra, the court decided that s. 231(3) of the Income Tax Act did not violate s. 8 of the Charter, because the seizure was not "unreasonable". In considering the matter as to what constituted "reasonableness" under given circumstances and legislation, the court examined the authorities which distinguished the approach to be taken in criminal or quasi- criminal investigations and those which were merely administrative or regulatory. One such case referred to in McKinlay was that of Belgoma Transportation Ltd. v. Director of Employment Standards (1985), 1985 CanLII 1958 (ON CA), 51 O.R. (2d) 509, 20 D.L.R. (4th) 156 (C.A.). Madam Justice Wilson set out the distinction as articulated in Belgoma which is as follows (McKinlay, at p. 647 S.C.R., p. 544 C.C.C., quoting Belgoma at p. 512):

The standards to be applied to the reasonableness of a search or seizure and the necessity for a warrant with respect to criminal investigations cannot be the same as those to be applied to search or seizure within an administrative and regulatory context . . . The "search or seizure" in the instant case, if such it is, is not aimed at detecting criminal activity, but rather, as indicated, in ensuring and securing compliance with the regulatory provisions of the Act enacted for the purpose of protecting the public interest.