Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court held that a phone warrant was supported by reasonable grounds, but a police-van intercept exceeded s. 184.2 because the officer was not an intended recipient.
The court dismissed an application to cross-examine the affiant on a Part VI wiretap ITO, finding no basis to challenge investigative necessity or alleged unlawful warrantless arrests.
The Court of Appeal set aside committal orders where the Record of the Case raised a reasonable question about the lawfulness of wiretap evidence and further disclosure was needed.
On these facts the customs examination was authorized by s.99(1)(a) and did not violate s.8; the wiretap authorization was supportable on the affidavit and met investigative necessity under s.186(1)(b); the conduct of the Justice of the Peace did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias; accordingly all Charter challenges failed and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld all convictions and dismissed all appeals: the ex parte informer-identity hearing comported with precedent and procedural safeguards; s.186(1.1) and s.487.01 are constitutionally valid when construed to require judicial satisfaction of the best interests of the administration of justice and reasonable grounds; the ITOs and warrants contained adequate corroboration and reasonable grounds; searches and warrant executions were lawful or any defects were non-prejudicial; exclusion under s.24(2) was not required; and expert hypothetical evidence was properly limited and admissible.
Source excerpt
The court granted leave in part to cross-examine a wiretap affiant on specific factual issues, but refused broad challenges to investigative necessity and other general objections.
The court dismissed Mr. Arthur’s disclosure application, finding the Crown had already disclosed the materials relevant to his arrest and that the broader investigative files would not assist his defence.
Appeal from a murder conviction dismissed. The Court upheld wiretap authorizations, admitted weapons and gait-analysis evidence, and rejected claims of improper cross-examination.
The court denied leave to cross-examine two sub-affiants on a wiretap authorization review, finding the proposed evidence would not materially assist the Garofoli application.
The court dismissed a defence disclosure application, holding the contested source reports were not shown to be relevant and remained protected by informant privilege.
Explore more
