QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2019 SKQB 135 Date: 2019 05 27 Docket CRM 34 0f 2014 Judicial Centre: Prince Albert BETWEEN: CURTIS VEY and ANGELA NICHOLSON APPLICANTS and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION: By court order made under subsection 517(1) of the Criminal Code, these reasons shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way until the end of the trial. Counsel: Lori O’Connor for the Crown, ‘Aston A. Fox Q.C. and Darren K. Kraushaar for Curtis Vey Ronald Piché for Angela Nicholson JUDGMENT DAWSON J. MAY 27, 2019 rt Angela Nicholson and Curtis Vey stand charged in a joint Indictment that: Count 1 THAT THEY, the said ANGELA NICHOLSON AND CURTIS VEY, on or about the 1* day of July A.D., 2013 at or near(21 (3) -2 Wakaw, in the Province of Saskatchewan, did conspire together to murder Jim Taylor contrary to Section 465(1}(a) of the Criminal Code. Count2; THAT THEY, the said ANGELA NICHOLSON AND CURTIS VEY, on or about the 1 day of July A.D., 2013 at or near Walkaw, in the Province of Saskatchewan, did conspire together to murder Brigitte Vey contrary to Section 465(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Curtis Vey has brought the following application: 1. An Order finding that the Applicant's Seetion 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure have been breached; 2. An Order finding that the Applicant's Section 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention and arrest have been breached; 3. An Order for the exclusion of any direct, as well as, derivative evidence obtained by the police as a result of the above breaches of the Applicant's Charter-protected rights, including but not limited to: a) the surreptitiously- obtained recording of the Applicant and b) any additional statements and recordings of the Applicant made by police obtained as a obtained as a (sic] result of the unlawful search and seizure. Angela Nicholson has brought the following application: L. An order finding that the Applicant's Section 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure has been breached; 2. An order finding that the Applicant's Section 9 Charter right to be free from arbitrary arrest or detention has been breached; 3, An order for the exclusion of any direct, as well as, derivative evidence obtained by the police as a rosult of the above breaches of the Applicant’s Charter protectedfaa rights, including but not limited to: a) the surreptitiously-obtained iPod recording of the Applicant and b) any additional statements and recordings of the Applicant made by police obtained as a result of the unlawful search and seizure. BACKGROUND LAW ON SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER (4) Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter] states: Search or re 8, Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizate 15] The Charter entrenched in the Canadian Constitution is the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The Charter, however, only applies to agents of the state and this protection is applicable only with respect to governmental actions, In interpreting this right, Canadian courts have been called upon to make two fundamental determinations: 1) has a search or seizure taken place? and 2) if so, is that search or seizure reasonable? {6} In Hunter v Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145, Justice Dickson (as he then was) set out the underlying framework which governs the interpretation and delineation of s. 8 of the Charter by the courts: the guarantee of security from unreasonable search and seizure only protects a reasonable expectation. This limitation on the right guaranteed by soction 8, whether it is expressed negatively as freedom from “unreasonable” search and seizure, or positively as an entitlement to a “reasonable” expectation of privacy, indicates that an assessment must be made as to whether in a particular situation the public’s interest in being left alone by government must give way to the government’s interest in intruding on the individual’s