The appellants were convicted of conspiracy to import cocaine based on evidence obtained from a room monitoring device.
Police officers had entered the residence of one of the appellants without consent to install the device, acting under an authorization that did not explicitly permit trespass.
The appellants argued the trespass rendered the interceptions not 'lawfully made' under the Criminal Code, making the evidence inadmissible.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the statutory scheme for electronic surveillance implicitly authorizes covert entry to install such devices when a judge grants an authorization.
The evidence was therefore lawfully obtained and admissible, and the appeals were dismissed.
