Kenneth S. Westlake

The appeal considered whether the confessions rule applies to accused statements used only on a Charter voir dire, whether police had exigent circumstances under s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a warrantless home entry, and whether seized evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The majority held the confessions rule does not govern this voir dire use, found the warrantless entry violated s. 8 because obtaining a warrant was practicable, and excluded the resulting evidence.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

The appellant Crown challenged a declaration that the emergency wiretap power in s. 184.4 of the Criminal Code violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Court held that warrantless interception in exigent circumstances can be constitutionally permissible where strict urgency conditions are met.

However, the provision lacked an adequate accountability mechanism, particularly after-the-fact notice to affected persons, and therefore failed constitutional minimum standards.

The infringement was not justified under section 1 because a notice requirement would not impair emergency police action while materially protecting privacy rights.

The appeal was dismissed and invalidity was suspended for 12 months to permit legislative revision.