The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in a contract killing.
The Crown's case relied heavily on intercepted telephone conversations.
The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the wiretap evidence should have been excluded because he was a 'known' person not named in the initial authorizations, and that the trial judge erred in denying his application for severance to compel a co-accused to testify.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was not a 'known' person when the initial authorizations were obtained and that the denial of severance did not result in a miscarriage of justice as the co-accused's proposed evidence was of marginal probative value.
