R. v. Sipes

R. v. Sipes

Balancing the Grant factors the court found the implementation error was an honest, non‑deliberate mistake in exigent circumstances, the impact on Brownell's own Charter interest was minimal because he was an authorized target and the primary privacy violation was to third parties, the recordings are reliable and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2011 BCSC 1730
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Dale Gordon Sipes; Accused: Leslie Podolski; Accused: Sheldon Richard O'Donnell; Accused: Peter Manolakos; Accused: Douglas Corey Brownell
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal (murder) Pre Trial Application Re Admissibility of Intercepted Communications / Application Under Charter S.24(2) to Exclude Intercepted Communications
Outcome
Three intercepted calls admitted; admission does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute
Legal Topics
Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Electronic Surveillance/wiretapping, Implementation and Compliance With Judicial Authorizations
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Privacy Law Evidence Law Charter S.8 Search and Seizure Charter S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Electronic Surveillance/wiretapping Implementation and Compliance With Judicial Authorizations

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Dale Gordon Sipes

Accused

Leslie Podolski

Accused

Sheldon Richard O'Donnell

Accused

Peter Manolakos

Accused

Douglas Corey Brownell

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (murder) Pre Trial Application Re Admissibility of Intercepted Communications / Application Under Charter S.24(2) to Exclude Intercepted Communications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two of the intercepted calls were unlawfully intercepted in breach of s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether admission of the intercepted calls would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s.24(2) of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether the third admitted call, conceded to be unlawfully intercepted, should nonetheless be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

Balancing the Grant factors the court found the implementation error was an honest, non‑deliberate mistake in exigent circumstances, the impact on Brownell's own Charter interest was minimal because he was an authorized target and the primary privacy violation was to third parties, the recordings are reliable and important to a serious prosecution, and the RCMP self‑reported and remedied the error; therefore admission of the three intercepted calls would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and the calls are admissible subject to counsel submissions on editing for prejudice.

Court Disposition

Three intercepted calls admitted; admission does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute

Orders

  • Three intercepted calls are admissible subject to submissions by counsel concerning redaction or exclusion on the basis that probative value is outweighed by prejudicial effect