R. v. Sanghera

R. v. Sanghera

The court applied the Grant framework and concluded the Charter-infringing conduct was mid-range in seriousness and had a serious impact on s.8 privacy interests; discoverability did not excuse the breach for ephemeral wiretap interceptions. Consequently, communications intercepted solely under the invalid clause 5.6 were excluded (six calls), while communications intercepted under other valid provisions of the Authorization were admissible (seven calls), because clause 5.6's inclusion did not taint those valid interceptions.

Citation
2012 BCSC 541
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Boby Sanghera; Accused: Navdip Sanghera; Accused: Charanjit Rangi; Accused: Savdip Sanghera; Accused: Jaspreet Virk
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on S.24(2) Application for Exclusion of Intercepted Communications
Outcome
Partial exclusion granted: some intercepted communications excluded, others admitted
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Search and Seizure, Charter S.8, Charter S.10, Exclusion of Evidence, Discoverability, Privacy
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Administrative Law Wiretap Authorization Search and Seizure Charter S.8 Charter S.10 +3 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Boby Sanghera

Accused

Navdip Sanghera

Accused

Charanjit Rangi

Accused

Savdip Sanghera

Accused

Jaspreet Virk

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on S.24(2) Application for Exclusion of Intercepted Communications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether intercepted communications on a mobile telephone should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether clause 5.6 of the wiretap authorization, invalidated due to an unlawful search, tainted other intercepts
  3. 3 Application of the Grant three-part s.24(2) analysis to wiretap interceptions

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied the Grant framework and concluded the Charter-infringing conduct was mid-range in seriousness and had a serious impact on s.8 privacy interests; discoverability did not excuse the breach for ephemeral wiretap interceptions. Consequently, communications intercepted solely under the invalid clause 5.6 were excluded (six calls), while communications intercepted under other valid provisions of the Authorization were admissible (seven calls), because clause 5.6's inclusion did not taint those valid interceptions.

Court Disposition

Partial exclusion granted: some intercepted communications excluded, others admitted

Orders

  • Exclude evidence of calls 30, 56, 58, 63, 64, 65 (intercepted only under invalid clause 5.6)
  • Admit evidence of calls 7, 20, 21, 96, 98, 101, 106 (intercepted under valid provisions of the Authorization)