R. v. Commisso

R. v. Commisso

Where an authorization to intercept private communications has been validly obtained in compliance with s.178.13, intercepted conversations that disclose evidence of offences not specified in the authorization are admissible; the statute contains no requirement that such interceptions be "unanticipated," and s.178.16(3.1) permits admission irrespective of whether the proceeding relates to the offence named in the authorization.

Citation
[1983] 2 SCR 121
Parties
Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Cosimo Commisso
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 October 1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From British Columbia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interception of Private Communications, Wiretapping, Admissibility of Evidence, Exclusionary Rule, Statutory Interpretation of Criminal Code
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Privacy Law Interception of Private Communications Wiretapping Admissibility of Evidence Exclusionary Rule Statutory Interpretation of Criminal Code

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Appellant

Cosimo Commisso

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an authorization to intercept private communications obtained for one offence renders lawful interceptions disclosing evidence of a different offence
  2. 2 Whether intercepted communications relating to an offence that was suspected at the time of renewal but not specified are admissible
  3. 3 Whether the anticipated/unanticipated distinction limits admissibility under s.178.16(3.1)

Ratio Decidendi

Where an authorization to intercept private communications has been validly obtained in compliance with s.178.13, intercepted conversations that disclose evidence of offences not specified in the authorization are admissible; the statute contains no requirement that such interceptions be "unanticipated," and s.178.16(3.1) permits admission irrespective of whether the proceeding relates to the offence named in the authorization.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Acquittal quashed
  • Conviction restored