R. v. Oliynyk et al.

R. v. Oliynyk et al.

Section 185(1)(e) is a procedural provision and must be read together with the substantive requirements of s.186 and governing Supreme Court jurisprudence (Duarte, Araujo); those materials impose a high objective standard (reasonable and probable grounds and investigative necessity) consistent with s.8, so s.185(1)(e) is not unconstitutional and the application is dismissed.

Citation
2005 BCSC 1895
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: David James Oliynyk; Accused: Joseph Elwood Roger Lepage; Accused: Lloyd Allan Ferris
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Constitutional Challenge to S.185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code / Oral Ruling on Constitutional Challenge (voir Dire)
Outcome
Application dismissed; constitutional challenge to s.185(1)(e) denied
Legal Topics
Interception of Private Communications, Wiretap/ Electronic Surveillance, Authorization Under S.186, S.8 Charter Search and Seizure, S.24(1) and S.52(1) Remedies, Procedural Vs Substantive Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter Rights Search and Seizure Privacy Law Evidence Interception of Private Communications Wiretap/ Electronic Surveillance +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David James Oliynyk

Accused

Joseph Elwood Roger Lepage

Accused

Lloyd Allan Ferris

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Constitutional Challenge to S.185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code / Oral Ruling on Constitutional Challenge (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.185(1)(e) authorizes interception of private communications in a manner inconsistent with s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the phrase 'may assist the investigation' imposes an insufficient standard compared to reasonable and probable grounds that the known person is connected to the offence
  3. 3 Whether a declaration of invalidity or other Charter remedy should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Section 185(1)(e) is a procedural provision and must be read together with the substantive requirements of s.186 and governing Supreme Court jurisprudence (Duarte, Araujo); those materials impose a high objective standard (reasonable and probable grounds and investigative necessity) consistent with s.8, so s.185(1)(e) is not unconstitutional and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; constitutional challenge to s.185(1)(e) denied

Orders

  • Constitutional challenge dismissed
  • No declaration of invalidity granted under s.52(1) of the Charter