R. v. Oliynyk et al.

R. v. Oliynyk et al.

The application to cross-examine was dismissed because the totality of information before the issuing justice and in Cpl. Gresham's affidavit and prior transcript provided reasonable grounds to believe interception of Morin's communications could assist the investigation, meeting the low Chesson threshold; there was no reasonable likelihood that further cross-examination would undermine the authorization's foundation.

Citation
2005 BCSC 1892
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
20 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Oral Ruling on Application to Cross Examine Re Wiretap Authorization (p1 2000)
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to cross-examine Cpl. Gresham on naming Morin denied; authorization P1-2000 upheld as properly naming Morin as a 'known'.
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorizations (part VI Criminal Code), Definition of a 'known' Party (r. V. Chesson), Review of Authorization (r. V. Araujo; R. V. Garofoli), Charter S.8 Search and Seizure, S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Leave to Cross Examine on Authorization
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter S.8, S.24(2)) Evidence (wiretap/telephone Interception) Wiretap Authorizations (part VI Criminal Code) Definition of a 'known' Party (r. V. Chesson) Review of Authorization (r. V. Araujo; R. V. Garofoli) Charter S.8 Search and Seizure S.24(2) Exclusion of Evidence +1 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David James Oliynyk

Accused

Joseph Elwood Roger LePage

Accused

Lloyd Allan Ferris

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Oral Ruling on Application to Cross Examine Re Wiretap Authorization (p1 2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine Cpl. Gresham about naming Morin as a 'known' in P1-2000
  2. 2 Whether Morin met the legal test for being named as a 'known' party under R. v. Chesson
  3. 3 Whether P1-2000 was lawfully issued and thus whether P1-2001 (which relied on P1-2000) is vitiated

Ratio Decidendi

The application to cross-examine was dismissed because the totality of information before the issuing justice and in Cpl. Gresham's affidavit and prior transcript provided reasonable grounds to believe interception of Morin's communications could assist the investigation, meeting the low Chesson threshold; there was no reasonable likelihood that further cross-examination would undermine the authorization's foundation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to cross-examine Cpl. Gresham on naming Morin denied; authorization P1-2000 upheld as properly naming Morin as a 'known'.

Orders

  • Application for leave to cross-examine Corporal Gresham on P1-2000 denied
  • Authorization P1-2000 upheld as properly naming Morin as a 'known'