This website uses cookies to various ends, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. You may accept all these cookies or choose only those categories of cookies that are acceptable to you.

Loading paragraph markers

R. v. Le and Nguy, 2018 BCPC 48 (CanLII)

Date:
2018-03-01
File number:
81066-1; 81066-2
Citation:
R. v. Le and Nguy, 2018 BCPC 48 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hqtk7>, retrieved on 2024-03-29

Citation:      R. v. Le and Nguy                                                   Date:              20180301

2018 BCPC 48                                                                          File Nos:     81066-1/81066-2

                                                                                                      Registry:     New Westminster

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

IN THE MATTER OF

AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 490(2) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

FOR AN ORDER FOR FURTHER DETENTION OF THINGS SEIZED

 

 

 

REGINA

 

 

v.

 

 

Tony Ching LE and Jeanette Yee NGUY

 

 

 

 

 

 

RULING ON APPLICATION

OF THE

HONOURABLE JUDGE D. SUDEYKO

 

 

 

 

 

Agent for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada:                                      David Patterson

Counsel for Mr. Le:                                                                                                Brent Anderson

Place of Hearing:                                                                                      New Westminster, B.C.

Date of Hearing:                                                                                                  February 7, 2018

Date of Judgment:                                                                                                   March 1, 2018


Background

[1]           On November 6, 2017, the police attended a domestic call, but soon discovered evidence of drug trafficking in the home.  As a result, they arrested the occupants for Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (“PPT”) and seized some money incidental to that arrest.  The police then obtained a search warrant for the residence that resulted in the seizure of various items in connection with drug trafficking, including illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia, electronic communication devices, computers, money in differing amounts and currency, as well as some ammunition and a machete.  The total number of seized items totals 138.

[2]           Although the police expect to recommend charges of PPT against the occupants, no charges have yet been laid.

[3]           The police filed a Report to Justice pursuant to s. 489.1 of the Criminal Code on November 20, 2017, documenting the items seized.  As required under s. 490(1), the police satisfied the Justice, in this case, that “detention of the seized thing is required for the purposes of any investigation”.  This granted the police a maximum 3 month period to detain the items from the date they were seized.

[4]           However, the Crown now applies for the continued detention of the seized items for a further period.  Pursuant to s. 490(2), this is a summary application and I must be “satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the investigation, its further detention for a specified period is warranted”.

[5]           The Crown have filed an affidavit from an investigating police officer in support of their application, which also lists and describes in summary form the many seized items allegedly related to the drug trafficking operation.  The affidavit describes the need for analysis of certain seized items for the investigation, and estimates the time required to complete that and allow review by the Crown, that being a further 5 months.  In their submissions, the Crown also says that the concern over delay, arising from the R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII), [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631 decision, leads to the intention to only lay charges when most, if not all, of the Crown disclosure can be provided to the charged party.

[6]           One of the occupants of the residence, Tony Ching Le (“Mr. Le”), opposes the order for continued detention of the seized items.  Mr. Le says that the Crown has an onus to provide some evidential basis for the continued detention of all of the seized items and that the affidavit fails, in regard to many of the items, to do so.  He has also applied for return of certain items pursuant to s. 490(7) and 490(9)(c), but acknowledges that there is no authority to do so if the continued detention is ordered under s. 490(2).

[7]           The issue in this case is whether the affidavit in support of the Crown’s application provides sufficient information to grant the continued detention of the seized items.

The Legal Principles

[8]           I was referred to the cases of R. v. Tennina 2007 CanLII 51706 (ON SCDC), 88 O.R. (3rd) 27 and 2008 ONCA, R. v. Raponi, 2004 SCC 50 (CanLII), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 35, R. v. Evangelista 2001 ABQB 13 (CanLII), 2001 A.B.Q.B. 13, as well as R. v. Craig (2016) 2016 BCCA 154 (CanLII), 335 C.C.C. 28 (B.C.C.A.).

[9]           From these cases, I adopt the following legal principles relevant to the applications before me:

1.            That the purpose of s. 490 is to ensure the property rights of individuals are fairly balanced against the legitimate need of ongoing investigations;

2.            That once it is established that the seized items are required to be detained for the criminal investigation pursuant to s. 490(1), the scope of the inquiry under s. 490(2) is primarily prospective and limited to the investigative steps yet to be taken and the estimate of time required to do so;

3.            That substantial deference should be shown to investigators, especially at first instance following the 3 month limit under s. 490(1).

Analysis

[10]        The Crown’s onus at this stage does not make it necessary to re-establish that each seized item’s detention is required for the purpose of the investigation, since that was done by the Justice pursuant to s. 490(1).  Moreover, Mr. Le has not put forward any evidence, or even made submissions, that the finding of the Justice no longer applies to any of the seized items.

[11]        The focus at the s. 490(2) stage is to determine if, and to what extent, the request for additional time to detain the seized items for the purpose of the investigation is warranted.

[12]        In my view, the affidavit filed by the Crown, together with their submissions, is sufficient to satisfy the basis for the continued detention of all of the seized items for the period of time requested.

[13]        Although the examination by the court of the progress of the investigation to date is to be minimal, the affidavit certainly shows that the investigation is indeed proceeding, with several items having been forwarded for analysis.

[14]        The affidavit also establishes that the police are awaiting the results of those analyses, including the alleged drugs seized and data evidence from the electronic devices, and estimates the time necessary to receive those results, complete the report to Crown, and allow for review by the Crown.  Having regard to the nature of the investigation, I conclude that the specified period of 5 months for further detention of the seized items is warranted.

Conclusion and Order

[15]        I grant the Crown’s application for a 5 month continuation of detention of all seized items pursuant to s. 490(2) of the Criminal Code, and dismiss the application of Mr. Le for return of any of the items.

The Honourable Judge D. Sudeyko

Provincial Court of British Columbia