Edwards, supra also confirms (relying on Hunter v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 145, 11 D.L.R. (4th) 641) that the fact that the accused had no proprietary interest in the property does not mean he cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in his own right. In Edwards, the court considered the admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of a search of the accused's girlfriend's apartment. On the facts, the court held the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. He was no more than a privileged visitor who kept a few personal belongings at the apartment. He did not contribute to rent or household expenses, and could not regulate access. The court noted (at paras. 49-50) that it was very important that the accused could not exclude others from the apartment, as “the right to be free from and intrusion or interference is a key element of privacy.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.