Leaving the Charter at Home: From Hape to McGregor

Authors

Gerald Chan, Stockwoods LLP
Benjamin Zolf

Abstract

Almost 20 years ago, in R. v. Hape, the Supreme Court held that Canadian police investigations can proceed unfettered by constitutional constraints, so long as they take place outside of Canada. The Court recently had the opportunity to revisit this position in R. v. McGregor, but declined to clarify Hape, let alone revisit it. This paper argues that this was a missed opportunity. Hape rests on the flawed premise that the extraterritorial application of the Charter would interfere with other nations’ sovereignty. The three exceptions to Hape’s general rule of non-extraterritorial application are either illusory or in tension with that premise. So is the reasoning in McGregor itself, which engages in the very analysis that Hape’s rationale should preclude. These considerations suggest that Hape should be reconsidered at the earliest opportunity.

Citation Information

Chan, Gerald and Zolf, Benjamin. "Leaving the Charter at Home: From Hape to McGregor." The Supreme Court Law Review, Third Series: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 5. (2026).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1008
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr-third-series/vol5/iss1/9

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

1 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter the "Charter"].

2 [2007] S.C.J. No. 26, 2007 SCC 26 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Hape"]. https://doi.org/10.12968/prps.2007.1.80.38517

3 See e.g., the extensive lists of academic criticism compiled by two different opinions in R. v. McGregor, [2023] S.C.J. No. 4, 2023 SCC 4, at para. 21, n. 2 (per Côté J.) and at para. 66, n. 4 (per Karakatsanis & Martin JJ.) (S.C.C.).

4 [2023] S.C.J. No. 4, 2023 SCC 4 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "McGregor"].

5 Full disclosure: one of the authors (Gerald Chan) was counsel for an intervener, David Asper Centre of Constitutional Rights, in McGregor.

6 [1995] S.C.J. No. 81, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Harrer"].

7 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).

8 Harrer, at para. 7 (S.C.C.), citing R. v. Black, [1989] S.C.J. No. 81, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138 (S.C.C.) and R. v. Evans, [1991] S.C.J. No. 31, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869 (S.C.C.).

9 Harrer, at para. 11 (S.C.C.).

10 Harrer, at para. 12 (S.C.C.).

11 Harrer, at paras. 13 & 21-24 (S.C.C.).

12 [1996] S.C.J. No. 62, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Terry"].

13 Terry, at para. 4 (S.C.C.).

14 Terry, at para. 12 (S.C.C.).

15 Terry, at para. 18 (S.C.C.), referring to Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States on Mutual Legal Assistance (March 18, 1985), Can T.S. 1990, No. 19, Art. VII, s. 2.

16 Terry, at para. 19 (S.C.C.).

17 [1998] S.C.J. No. 68, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Cook"]. https://doi.org/10.1353/utq.2007.0041

18 Cook, at para. 6 (S.C.C.).

19 Cook, at paras. 41-43 (S.C.C.).

20 Cook, at para. 46 (S.C.C.).

21 Cook, at para. 50 (S.C.C.).

22 Hape, at para. 6 (S.C.C.).

23 Hape, Factum of Appellant, at paras. 20-30 (arguing on behalf of the Crown that the Charter should not apply extraterritorially on the basis of Terry and Cook without urging their revision); John H. Currie, "Khadr's Twist on Hape: Tortured Determinations of the Extraterritorial Reach of the Charter" (2008) 46 Can. Y.B. Int'l. L. 307, at 315. As Prof. Currie puts it, the Court reached its holding "unbidden by the Crown and unassisted by any submissions on Canada's international legal obligations". Indeed, the only factum before the Court in Hape that argued for either of Hape's near-total elimination of the extraterritorial application of the Charter or its focus on the importance of cross-border criminal investigations was that of an intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario (Factum of Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario, at paras. 11 & 21). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0069005800009590

24 Hape, at para. 55 (S.C.C.).

25 Hape, at para. 57 (S.C.C.).

26 Hape, at para. 58 (S.C.C.).

27 Hape, at para. 65 (S.C.C.).

28 Hape, at para. 69 (S.C.C.).

29 Hape, at para. 83 (S.C.C.).

30 Hape, at para. 85 (S.C.C.).

31 Hape, at para. 87 (S.C.C.).

32 Hape, at para. 89 (S.C.C.).

33 Hape, at para. 91 (S.C.C.).

34 Hape, at para. 85 (S.C.C.).

35 Hape, at para. 91 (S.C.C.).

36 Hape, at para. 52 (S.C.C.).

37 See generally R. v. McGregor, 2018 CM 4023, affirmed by a unanimous panel of the Court Martial Appeal Court: [2020] C.M.A.J. No. 8, 2020 CMAC 8.

38 McGregor, at para. 21 (S.C.C.).

39 McGregor, at para. 23 (S.C.C.).

40 McGregor, at paras. 24 et seq (S.C.C.).

41 McGregor, at para. 82 (S.C.C.).

42 McGregor, Factum of Appellant, at Parts III.A-B (S.C.C.).

43 Hape, at para. 106 (S.C.C.).

44 Hape, at para. 116 (S.C.C.).

45 Hape, at para. 117 (S.C.C.).

46 R. v. Tan, [2014] B.C.J. No. 26, 2014 BCCA 9, at paras. 57-58 (B.C.C.A.).

47 R. v. Tan, [2014] B.C.J. No. 26, 2014 BCCA 9, at para. 73 (B.C.C.A.).

48 Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), [2008] F.C.J. No. 356, 2008 FC 336, at para. 152 (F.C.).

49 Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), [2008] F.C.J. No. 356, 2008 FC 336, at para. 153 (F.C.).

50 Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), [2008] F.C.J. No. 356, 2008 FC 336, at para. 160 (F.C.).

51 Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), [2008] F.C.J. No. 356, 2008 FC 336, at para. 164 (F.C.).

52 Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), [2008] F.C.J. No. 356, 2008 FC 336, at para. 168 (F.C.).

53 Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), [2008] F.C.J. No. 356, 2008 FC 336, at paras. 170-171 (F.C.).

54 Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Canadian Forces), [2008] F.C.J. No. 1700, 2008 FCA 401, at para. 31 (F.C.A.).

55 Hape, at para. 106 (S.C.C.).

56 R. v. Tan, [2014] B.C.J. No. 26, 2014 BCCA 9, at para. 57 (B.C.C.A.).

57 Amir Attaran, "Have Charter, Will Travel? Extraterritoriality in Constitutional Law and Canadian Exceptionalism" (2008) 87 Can. Bar. Rev. 515, at 536; Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, s. 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07782-3_30

58 Amir Attaran, "Have Charter, Will Travel? Extraterritoriality in Constitutional Law and Canadian Exceptionalism" (2008) 87 Can. Bar. Rev. 515, at 536.

59 McGregor, Factum of Appellant, at paras. 148-181& Factum of Respondent, at paras. 39-45 (S.C.C.).

60 Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, [2008] S.C.J. No. 28, 2008 SCC 28, at para. 19 (S.C.C.).

61 Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, [2008] S.C.J. No. 28, 2008 SCC 28, at para. 21 (S.C.C.).

62 The Khadr Court is less than forthcoming about the specific source of the remedy it orders, but the substance of its order is garden-variety disclosure under s. 7, which is difficult to conceptualize as anything other than a remedy under s. 24(1).

63 Hape, at para. 47 (S.C.C.).

64 Hape, at para. 52 (S.C.C.).

65 Hape, at para. 65 (S.C.C.). It is also surprising that principles of comity should be able to limit the application of the Charter at all, given their somewhat casual, non-obligatory force. It is puzzling that the supreme law of Canada would be made subordinate to such principles, since the Charter is strictly binding on Canadian legal authority whereas principles of comity, by Hape's own acknowledgment, at para. 47, are not.

66 Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, [2008] S.C.J. No. 28, 2008 SCC 28, at para. 19 (S.C.C.)., quoting Hape, at paras. 51, 52 & 101 (S.C.C.).

67 Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, [2008] S.C.J. No. 28, 2008 SCC 28, at paras. 22-25 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.22.25.28.s34

68 Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, [2008] S.C.J. No. 28, 2008 SCC 28, at para. 26 (S.C.C.).

69 John H. Currie, "Khadr's Twist on Hape: Tortured Determinations of the Extraterritorial Reach of the Charter" (2008) 46 Can. Y.B. Int'l. L. 307, at 328-329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0069005800009590

70 Charter, s. 52(1).

71 McGregor, at paras. 67-68 (S.C.C.).

72 Hape, at paras. 107-108 (S.C.C.).

73 Hape, at para. 108 (S.C.C.).

74 Hape, at para. 109 (S.C.C.).

75 Hape, at para. 109, quoting Harrer, at para. 16 (S.C.C.).

76 Hape, at para. 111 (S.C.C.).

77 Hape, quoting Harrer, at para. 51 (S.C.C.).

78 See e.g., R. v. A.K., [2022] A.J. No. 914, 2022 ABQB 503, at para. 31 (Alta. Q.B.).

79 R. v. Klassen, [2008] B.C.J. No. 2485, 2008 BCSC 1762, at para. 112 (B.C.S.C.).

https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.V112.11.2485.2485

80 R. v. McGregor, [2020] C.M.A.J. No. 8, 2020 CMAC 8, at para. 61 (Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada).

81 Hape, at paras. 109 & 111 (S.C.C.).

82 Hape, at para. 58 (S.C.C.).

83 Hape, at para. 58 (S.C.C.).

84 John H. Currie, "Khadr's Twist on Hape: Tortured Determinations of the Extraterritorial Reach of the Charter" (2008) 46 Can. Y.B. Int'l. L. 307, at 317.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0069005800009590

85 McGregor, Factum of Intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, at paras. 12-17; Factum of Intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association, at para. 22 (S.C.C.).

86 Hape, at paras. 109 & 111 (S.C.C.).

87 R. v. Grant, [2009] S.C.J. No. 32, 2009 SCC 32, at paras. 72-75 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.18773/austprescr.2009.036; R. v. Zacharias, [2023] S.C.J. No. 30, 2023 SCC 30, at paras. 66-69 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1515/rbf-2023-4014; R. v. McColman, [2023] S.C.J. No. 8, 2023 SCC 8, at paras. 60-64 (S.C.C.); R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54, at para. 120 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/vomw.202270037

88 R. v. Collins, [1987] S.C.J. No. 15, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, at 284 (S.C.C.); R. v. Grant, [2009] S.C.J. No. 32, 2009 SCC 32, at para. 61 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.18078/amstin.2009.32.2.010

89 R. v. Grant, [2009] S.C.J. No. 32, 2009 SCC 32, at paras. 72-75 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.18773/austprescr.2009.036

R. v. Zacharias, [2023] S.C.J. No. 30, 2023 SCC 30, at paras. 66-69 (S.C.C.) https://doi.org/10.1515/rbf-2023-4014

R. v. McColman, [2023] S.C.J. No. 8, 2023 SCC 8, at paras. 60-64 (S.C.C.)

R. v. Beaver, [2022] S.C.J. No. 54, 2022 SCC 54, at para. 120 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1002/vomw.202270037

90 See e.g., R. v. Brunelle, [2024] S.C.J. No. 3, 2024 SCC 3, at paras. 28-29 (S.C.C.).

91 Harrer, at para. 12 (S.C.C.).

92 McGregor, at paras. 24-44 (S.C.C.).

93 McGregor, at para. 26 (S.C.C.), citing, R. v. Collins, [1987] S.C.J. No. 15, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1080/00173138709428900

94 Hape, at para. 89 (S.C.C.).

95 Hape, at para. 97 (S.C.C.).

96 Hape, at para. 98 (S.C.C.).

97 Fleming v. Ontario, [2019] S.C.J. No. 45, 2019 SCC 45, at para. 3 (S.C.C.); Cook, at para. 119 (S.C.C.) ("there can be no doubt that the wording of s. 32(1) includes the actions of the Vancouver police, since they are constituted as part of the government and exercise authority under a provincial statute.") (emphasis in the original). R. v. Dedman, [1985] S.C.J. No. 45, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2, at 10-11 (S.C.C.) ("It has always been a fundamental tenet of the rule of law in this country that the police, in carrying out their general duties as law enforcement officers of the state, have limited powers and are entitled to interfere with the liberty or property of the citizen only to the extent authorized by law. . . . Absent explicit or implied statutory authority, the police must be able to find authority for their actions at common law. Otherwise they act unlawfully"). See also James Stribopoulos, "In Search of Dialogue: The Supreme Court, Police Powers and the Charter" (2005) 31 Queen's L.J. 1, at 8-10.

98 Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 (R.W.D.S.U.) v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] S.C.J. No. 75, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, at 592-593 (S.C.C.); Cloutier v. Langlois, [1990] S.C.J. No. 10, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158, at 184 (S.C.C.); R. v. Golden, [2001] S.C.J. No. 81, 2001 SCC 83, at para. 104 (S.C.C.). See also Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, [2024] S.C.J. No. 10, 2024 SCC 10, at paras. 41 & 44 (S.C.C.) (explaining that the Charter "applies broadly to the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government in respect of all matters within their authority" and describing the objective of s. 32(1) of the Charter as "prevent[ing] Parliament, the legislatures, and the federal, provincial, and territorial governments by avoiding their Charter obligations by conferring certain of their legislative responsibilities or powers on other entities that are not ordinarily subject to the Charter.").

99 Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Sélection Milton, [1994] S.C.J. No. 7, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 406, at para. 420-421 (S.C.C.), cited with approval in R. v. Jarvis, [2002] S.C.J. No. 76, 2002 SCC 73, at para. 72 (S.C.C.). See also British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Branch, [1995] S.C.J. No. 32, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3, at paras 61-63 (S.C.C.).

100 Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v. Sélection Milton, [1994] S.C.J. No. 7, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 406, at para. 422.

101 Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1990] S.C.J. No. 23, 1 S.C.R. 425, at 506 (S.C.C.).

102 In British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Branch, [1995] S.C.J. No. 32, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 61 (S.C.C.) for example, the regulatory aim in question was the protection of the investing public through securities regulation that encroached on the privacy of securities trader.

103 Harrer, at para. 16 (S.C.C.).