John C. Tait

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to import marijuana based on private communications intercepted under three judicial authorizations.

The authorizations included a 'resort to' clause permitting interception at any place in British Columbia resorted to by the named persons, which the police used to tap public pay telephones and surreptitiously enter residential premises.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the 'resort to' clauses were lawful under the Criminal Code, the failure to include minimizing conditions for public pay telephones and the surreptitious entry into private dwellings without specific authorization violated section 8 of the Charter.

However, the Court admitted the evidence under section 24(2) because the police acted in good faith based on the law as it was understood at the time, and dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada previously ordered that all proceedings in this appeal, including the judgment and reasons for judgment, be sealed to protect the safety of the appellants.

The Court subsequently notified the parties of its intention to make the proceedings public unless cause was shown.

As neither the appellants nor the Crown provided a valid reason to continue the sealing order, the Court concluded that the circumstances warranting confidentiality were no longer present.

The Court ordered the release of the court file, including the reasons for judgment.

The appellant was convicted of conspiring to import a narcotic after a police informer recorded their conversations using a body pack without judicial authorization.

The appellant appealed, arguing the electronic surveillance violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while participant electronic surveillance without prior judicial authorization infringes section 8, the admission of the recordings in this case would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.