R. v. Lising and Pires

R. v. Lising and Pires

The court refused to hear the proposed adjudicative evidence because the constitutional validity of s.184.2 can be determined by assessing the statute's general effects on reasonable assumptions (legislative facts); specific evidence from the affiant or sub‑affiant about investigative alternatives would not assist the constitutional inquiry and is therefore unnecessary, so the application to call that evidence at the voir dire is denied.

Citation
2000 BCSC 1937
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Ronaldo Lising; Accused: Francisco Batista Pires
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Charter Challenge to Wiretap Authorization (s.184.2) / Oral Ruling on Application for Voir Dire and Applications Under S.52 and S.24(2)
Outcome
Application to hear evidence of the affiant and sub‑affiant at the voir dire is refused; no evidentiary hearing on those adjudicative facts will be held; constitutional issue to be decided on general effects.
Legal Topics
One Party Consent Interceptions, Section 184.2 Criminal Code, Section 186 Criminal Code, S.8 Charter Privacy, S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, S.52 Declaration of Invalidity, Judicial Fact‑finding Vs Legislative Facts
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter Rights Evidence Search and Seizure Wiretap Law One Party Consent Interceptions Section 184.2 Criminal Code +5 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Ronaldo Lising

Accused

Francisco Batista Pires

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Charter Challenge to Wiretap Authorization (s.184.2) / Oral Ruling on Application for Voir Dire and Applications Under S.52 and S.24(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.184.2 of the Criminal Code violates s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether adjudicative facts (affiant/sub‑affiant evidence) must be heard to decide the s.184.2 constitutional challenge
  3. 3 Whether evidence obtained under s.184.2 should be excluded under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to hear the proposed adjudicative evidence because the constitutional validity of s.184.2 can be determined by assessing the statute's general effects on reasonable assumptions (legislative facts); specific evidence from the affiant or sub‑affiant about investigative alternatives would not assist the constitutional inquiry and is therefore unnecessary, so the application to call that evidence at the voir dire is denied.

Court Disposition

Application to hear evidence of the affiant and sub‑affiant at the voir dire is refused; no evidentiary hearing on those adjudicative facts will be held; constitutional issue to be decided on general effects.

Orders

  • Application to call the affiant and sub‑affiant at the voir dire is refused.
  • No evidence of the affiant or sub‑affiant will be heard for the purposes of the constitutional challenge.