The accused, an immigration lawyer and her assistant, were charged with counselling fraudulent refugee claims.
The police obtained a consent wiretap authorization to record undercover meetings with the accused.
The accused brought an application to exclude the intercepted communications, arguing the affidavit supporting the authorization contained material misrepresentations and omissions, violating their section 8 Charter rights.
The court found that while the affidavit contained errors, including failing to disclose an informant's motive, the authorization would still have issued if the errors were corrected.
The court dismissed the application, finding no section 8 breach and concluding that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under section 24(2).
