R. v. Oppenheim

R. v. Oppenheim

The judicial summary, together with the redacted ITO and unredacted material reviewed by the judge under seal, satisfied Garofoli Step Six by conveying the nature of the redactions sufficiently to permit meaningful challenge; considering the unredacted informer material (attenuating its weight due to restricted testing), the reviewing judge concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds and investigative necessity under s.186 of the Criminal Code, and therefore the authorizing justice could have issued the wiretap authorization.

Citation
2021 BCSC 1230
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Cameron Jarvis Oppenheim; Accused: Brian Keith Kiraly-Miller; Accused: Stefan Janic; Accused: Andre Joseph Brunet; Accused: Victor Alexandru Cirjau; Accused: Justin James Severight
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Wiretap Authorization Review / Garofoli Step Six (stage One and Stage Two) Voir Dire
Outcome
Application by the accused to quash or overturn the wiretap authorization dismissed; Crown permitted to rely on the unredacted ITO under Garofoli Step Six
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Informer Privilege, Garofoli Step Six, Search and Seizure, Probable Cause, Investigative Necessity, Right to Full Answer and Defence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Wiretap Authorization Informer Privilege Garofoli Step Six Search and Seizure Probable Cause +2 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Cameron Jarvis Oppenheim

Accused

Brian Keith Kiraly-Miller

Accused

Stefan Janic

Accused

Andre Joseph Brunet

Accused

Victor Alexandru Cirjau

Accused

Justin James Severight

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Wiretap Authorization Review / Garofoli Step Six (stage One and Stage Two) Voir Dire

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the redacted ITO and judicial summary provided sufficient basis for the accused to challenge the wiretap authorization under Garofoli Step Six
  2. 2 Whether informer privilege required nondisclosure of identifying details and whether a judicial summary could convey the necessary 'nature' of redactions
  3. 3 Whether the authorizing justice could have issued the wiretap authorization based on reasonable and probable grounds and investigative necessity

Ratio Decidendi

The judicial summary, together with the redacted ITO and unredacted material reviewed by the judge under seal, satisfied Garofoli Step Six by conveying the nature of the redactions sufficiently to permit meaningful challenge; considering the unredacted informer material (attenuating its weight due to restricted testing), the reviewing judge concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds and investigative necessity under s.186 of the Criminal Code, and therefore the authorizing justice could have issued the wiretap authorization.

Court Disposition

Application by the accused to quash or overturn the wiretap authorization dismissed; Crown permitted to rely on the unredacted ITO under Garofoli Step Six

Orders

  • Crown's Stage One application under Garofoli Step Six is allowed
  • The reviewing judge may consider the unredacted ITO under seal to assess the issuance of P.18/2019 wiretap authorization