The applicants sought exclusion of wiretap evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that Part VI authorizations were obtained using an unsigned and improperly commissioned affidavit, and allegedly lacked investigative necessity and reasonable grounds.
The court heard viva voce evidence from the affiant officer and the commissioner of oaths regarding irregularities in the affidavit commissioning process.
The court found the deficiencies were mechanical errors made in good faith and concluded the affidavit evidence had nevertheless been sworn and was trustworthy.
Applying the principles governing review of wiretap authorizations, the court held the record demonstrated investigative necessity and reasonable and probable grounds.
The motions to exclude the intercepted communications were dismissed.
