R. v. Correia

R. v. Correia

The court found no evidence of deliberate bad faith by police, ordered targeted amplifications/excisions to the ITO (notably inserting 'ostensible' and adding CCRA provisions), concluded an authorizing judge, applying the amplified record, could have validly granted the s.184.2 authorization; consequently the authorization is valid and the Charter application is dismissed; the collateral attack argument was rejected as inapt in the circumstances.

Citation
2020 BCSC 397
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Colin Raymond Correia; Accused: Sheldon Joseph Hunter
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter S.8 Challenge to One‑party Consent Electronic Surveillance Authorization Under S.184.2 Criminal Code / Voir Dire #6 Oral Ruling on Charter Application
Outcome
Charter application dismissed; authorization upheld as valid after specified amplifications to the ITO
Legal Topics
Electronic Surveillance and Interception Authorizations, ITO Accuracy, Excision and Amplification, Parole Conditions and Authority to Vary, S.8 Charter Search and Seizure, Collateral Attack on Administrative Decisions, Non‑disclosure/misleading Information to Authorizing Judge
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Administrative Law Corrections Law Evidence and Procedure Privacy/surveillance Law Electronic Surveillance and Interception Authorizations ITO Accuracy, Excision and Amplification +4 more

Case Brief

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Colin Raymond Correia

Accused

Sheldon Joseph Hunter

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter S.8 Challenge to One‑party Consent Electronic Surveillance Authorization Under S.184.2 Criminal Code / Voir Dire #6 Oral Ruling on Charter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seeking and granting of a one‑party consent authorization under s.184.2 constituted a s.8 Charter breach
  2. 2 Whether material information about a parolee's special condition and the scope of authority to vary or ignore it was omitted from the Information to Obtain (ITO) such that the authorization was invalid
  3. 3 Whether the district director's conduct amounted to an unlawful variation of a Parole Board special condition or merely a limited non‑enforcement and whether that should have been disclosed

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no evidence of deliberate bad faith by police, ordered targeted amplifications/excisions to the ITO (notably inserting 'ostensible' and adding CCRA provisions), concluded an authorizing judge, applying the amplified record, could have validly granted the s.184.2 authorization; consequently the authorization is valid and the Charter application is dismissed; the collateral attack argument was rejected as inapt in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Charter application dismissed; authorization upheld as valid after specified amplifications to the ITO

Orders

  • ITO to be amplified/excised as described in judgment (insert 'ostensible' in specified paragraphs, replace 'Court Order' with 'special condition', add monitoring language and include relevant CCRA provisions)
  • Authorization under s.184.2 is validated and remains in effect