Chambers v. The Queen

Chambers v. The Queen

The majority held that the existence of a concurrent income tax investigation and an arrangement to pass information to tax authorities was irrelevant to the validity of authorizations granted for the drug investigation and did not vitiate those authorizations; consequently the appeal was dismissed and the result of the Court of Appeal (setting aside the acquittal and ordering a new trial) was effectively upheld.

Citation
[1986] 2 SCR 29
Parties
Appellant/accused: Martin Chambers; Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 1986
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority). Dissent by Wilson and La Forest JJ.
Legal Topics
Interception/wiretap Authorizations, Material Non‑disclosure to Authorizing Judge, Solicitor‑client Privilege Protection in Wiretaps, Admissibility of Intercepted Communications, Information Sharing With Tax Authorities
Source Language
English
Evidence Criminal Law Privacy/surveillance Law Procedural Law Interception/wiretap Authorizations Material Non‑disclosure to Authorizing Judge Solicitor‑client Privilege Protection in Wiretaps Admissibility of Intercepted Communications +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Chambers

Appellant/accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to disclose a concurrent income tax investigation and an agreement to pass intercepted information to tax authorities vitiates wiretap authorizations for a drug investigation
  2. 2 Whether applicants for a wiretap must inform the authorizing judge of concurrent investigations for which authorization cannot be obtained
  3. 3 Whether terms to protect solicitor‑client privilege are mandatory under s.178.13(1.2) of the Criminal Code

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the existence of a concurrent income tax investigation and an arrangement to pass information to tax authorities was irrelevant to the validity of authorizations granted for the drug investigation and did not vitiate those authorizations; consequently the appeal was dismissed and the result of the Court of Appeal (setting aside the acquittal and ordering a new trial) was effectively upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority). Dissent by Wilson and La Forest JJ.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the British Columbia Court of Appeal restoring Crown's appeal and setting aside the trial judge's acquittal