The applicants challenged three Part VI authorizations to intercept private communications, arguing a lack of reasonable and probable grounds and investigative necessity.
The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) relied almost entirely on unproven tipsters, lacked sufficient detail and corroboration, and contained misleading information regarding applicant travel.
The court also found that investigative necessity was not established as other reasonable investigative methods were not adequately explored.
Consequently, the authorizations were deemed invalid, and the intercepted communications were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.