Andras Schreck

The appellants challenged a s. 37 order sustaining Crown objections to questions that might reveal the identity of a confidential source described in a wiretap affidavit.

The Court of Appeal held that even if the source acted as a police agent in an unrelated stolen-goods transaction, that did not convert the source into an agent for all purposes or in relation to the appellants' drug investigation.

The court further held that, even assuming the Crown's earlier characterization of the source as an agent in the wiretap materials created prejudice and amounted to an abuse of process, compelled disclosure of identity was unavailable because informer privilege must be protected if it in fact applies.

Any appropriate remedy would instead lie, if warranted, in a Garofoli challenge to the authorization and possible exclusion of intercepted evidence.

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence after pleading guilty to criminal negligence causing death arising from alcohol-impaired, high-speed driving through multiple red lights, causing a fatal collision.

The court held that this offence does not lend itself to a fixed sentencing range because it may be committed in an almost infinite variety of factual circumstances, although alcohol-related cases have attracted increasing severity over time.

Given the appellant’s extreme moral blameworthiness, prior record, and the need for denunciation and general deterrence, the five-year penitentiary sentence and 15-year driving prohibition were not clearly unreasonable.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.