Case ID
TBD
Citation
2018 BCPC 344
Court / Tribunal
Provincial Court
Province / Territory
British Columbia
Decision Year
2018
Holding/Outcome
No Charter breach found.
Applicants
N/A (Criminal voir dire)
Case Summary
Unhoused accused was suspected of dealing drugs out of his tent, which was set up on a public sidewalk. Officers arrested him at his tent, then searched the tent without warrant. On voir dire, accused argued that the tent was a dwelling-house protected by Feeney. The court found otherwise, distinguishing the tent on the basis that it had no legal right to be where it was. Court also found that the search of the tent was incident to arrest and was conducted reasonably. So, no s.8 violation.
Encampment Location Type
Land Owner
Shelter Availability
Injunction Requested?
Injunction Outcome
Municipal By-law/Statutory Provision
Section 7 Considered?
Section 15 Considered?
Section 2 Considered?
Administrative Law considered?
Interveners
Remedy / Court Order
Appeal / Current Status
Final
Key Legal Issues
Charter s.8, reasonable expectation of privacy, warrantless search, Feeney, search incident to arrest.
Decision Link
Judicial Trend
Restricting
Notes
This decision explicitly states that it is not about whether all tents can be considered homes. Rather, it was a fact-specific determination, made in the totality of the circumstances.
Voir dire appealed to BCCA, which refused to deal with it. Picard’s conviction ultimately rested on the items seized from his person, not from the tent. However, the BCCA left open the possibility of revisiting the status of tents as ‘homes’ under Feeney.
