The appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and kidnapping.
The Crown's case relied on private communications intercepted via a listening device surreptitiously installed in a co-accused's vehicle and powered by its battery.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the installation of the device was lawful and authorized by necessary implication under Part IV.1 of the Criminal Code.
However, the Court found that one appellant's communications were inadmissible because she was a 'known' person to the police but was not named in the authorization, and the 'basket clause' for unknown persons could not apply to her.
Her appeal was allowed, while the other appellant's appeal was dismissed.
