The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence, which were based on communications intercepted under judicial authorization.
At trial, a Garofoli motion challenging the authorization's validity due to redacted affidavits and inadequate summaries was dismissed, leading to conviction.
Subsequently, in two other prosecutions arising from the same investigation, the Crown conceded that further disclosure was necessary for the accused to make full answer and defence, which they could not provide without compromising confidential informants, resulting in stays of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.
The Court of Appeal admitted evidence from these subsequent proceedings, finding it in the interest of justice.
Given the Crown's concessions in related cases, the court determined that fairness required the appellant's prosecution also be stayed.