R. v. Courtoreille and Giroux

R. v. Courtoreille and Giroux

The authorization under s.186 was valid because the affidavit established investigative necessity: although the investigation had produced significant links, police lacked proof of the precise roles of the suspects and other methods had failed or were unlikely to succeed; additionally the visitor's pod was not a place ordinarily used by solicitors under s.186(2); therefore the intercepted recording was admissible.

Citation
2004 BCSC 834
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Danial Alexander Courtoreille; Accused: Gordon Bryan Giroux
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Second Degree Murder / Voir Dire Ruling
Outcome
Authorization under s.186 upheld; intercepted evidence admissible
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Investigative Necessity (s.186(1)(b)), Solicitor Client Privilege (s.186(2)), Undercover Operations, Admissibility of Intercepted Communications, Review Standard for Authorization
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional/charter Law Privacy Law Procedural Law Wiretap Authorization Investigative Necessity (s.186(1)(b)) Solicitor Client Privilege (s.186(2)) +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Danial Alexander Courtoreille

Accused

Gordon Bryan Giroux

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Second Degree Murder / Voir Dire Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the s.186 authorization met the investigative necessity requirement
  2. 2 Whether police exhausted or attempted other investigative techniques or whether other methods were unlikely to succeed
  3. 3 Whether the success of an undercover operation rendered interception unnecessary

Ratio Decidendi

The authorization under s.186 was valid because the affidavit established investigative necessity: although the investigation had produced significant links, police lacked proof of the precise roles of the suspects and other methods had failed or were unlikely to succeed; additionally the visitor's pod was not a place ordinarily used by solicitors under s.186(2); therefore the intercepted recording was admissible.

Court Disposition

Authorization under s.186 upheld; intercepted evidence admissible

Orders

  • Authorization granted by Chamberlist J. is valid
  • Recording of intercepted communications admissible