R. v. Oliynyk et al.

R. v. Oliynyk et al.

The authorizing judge properly had reasonable and probable grounds, on the totality of the affidavit (the conversation with Cox plus Cox's history and contextual inferences such as stated price, finder fee and references to "appropriate people"), to conclude a conspiracy to commit murder of an unknown person(s) existed; identification of a second conspirator by name was not required for reasonable and probable grounds; accordingly authorization P1-2000 was valid as to the third specified offence.

Citation
2005 BCSC 1893
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 Judicial Review of Wiretap/interception Authorization / Oral Ruling Re Validity of Authorization (review of Authorization P1 2000)
Outcome
Authorization P1-2000 upheld with respect to the third specified offence (conspiracy to commit murder of an unknown person or persons).
Legal Topics
Wiretap/interception Authorization, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Conspiracy, Standing to Challenge Authorization, Naming a Known Person Under Chesson, Review of Judicial Authorizations
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Evidence Procedural Law Wiretap/interception Authorization Reasonable and Probable Grounds Conspiracy Standing to Challenge Authorization +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David James Oliynyk

Accused

Joseph Elwood Roger LePage

Accused

Lloyd Allan Ferris

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Judicial Review of Wiretap/interception Authorization / Oral Ruling Re Validity of Authorization (review of Authorization P1 2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit provided reasonable and probable grounds to authorize interception for the specified offence of conspiracy to commit murder of an unknown person(s)
  2. 2 Whether a conspiracy requires at least one other identified person to exist for grounds to authorize interception
  3. 3 Whether defence counsel (LePage and Ferris) had standing to challenge the validity of authorization based on s.7 and s.11(d) Charter rights

Ratio Decidendi

The authorizing judge properly had reasonable and probable grounds, on the totality of the affidavit (the conversation with Cox plus Cox's history and contextual inferences such as stated price, finder fee and references to "appropriate people"), to conclude a conspiracy to commit murder of an unknown person(s) existed; identification of a second conspirator by name was not required for reasonable and probable grounds; accordingly authorization P1-2000 was valid as to the third specified offence.

Court Disposition

Authorization P1-2000 upheld with respect to the third specified offence (conspiracy to commit murder of an unknown person or persons).

Orders

  • Ban on publication pursuant to Criminal Code s.539(1) maintained
  • Conditional permission granted for counsel for Mr. LePage and Mr. Ferris to be heard on standing issues