R. v. Chow

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Voir Dire on Validity of Interception Authorizations / Oral Ruling on Admissibility and Review of December 19, 1997 Authorization Following Prior Ruling Invalidating October 23, 1997 Authorization

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether intercepted communications obtained under an earlier invalid authorization may be used in an application or review for a subsequent authorization
2. 2 Whether unlawfully obtained evidence can be considered by an authorizing judicial officer absent a Charter analysis
3. 3 Whether the remedy for use of unlawfully obtained evidence in authorization proceedings must be determined under the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the question of whether unlawfully obtained interceptions may be used in an application or review for a subsequent authorization must be addressed under the Charter; applying authorities including R. v. Spinelli, the court ordered that all information directly or indirectly connected with interceptions of Mr. Liu's, Mr. Au's, and Mr. Seto's communications be excised from the affidavit supporting the December 19, 1997 authorization, while other intercepts not involving those individuals could be considered by the authorizing judge.

Court Disposition

Court ordered excision of all information directly or indirectly connected with interceptions of Liu, Au and Seto from the affidavit supporting the December 19, 1997 authorization; otherwise intercepted communications under the October authorization may be considered in the review of the December authorization...

Orders

• Excise from the affidavit in support of the December 19, 1997 authorization all information directly or indirectly connected with interceptions of the communications of Barry Liu, David Au, and Vicker Seto.
• Other intercepted communications obtained under the October 23, 1997 authorization may be considered on the review of the December 19, 1997 authorization, subject to Charter principles.