Michael D. Sanders

The police received an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip that the accused was growing marijuana.

Based on the tip and subsequent police observations, a search warrant was obtained and executed, leading to drug charges.

At trial, the accused sought disclosure of the tip sheet, which the trial judge ordered produced after editing out identifying details.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the tip sheet was protected by informer privilege, which is absolute subject only to the 'innocence at stake' exception.

The Court concluded that the trial judge erred in editing and disclosing the document, as it is impossible to know what details might reveal an anonymous informer's identity.

The appellant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in narcotics, challenging the validity of a wiretap authorization.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, substantially agreeing with the lower court's reasons regarding the lawful obtaining of the first authorization and the police's use of the 'resort to' clause.

One justice would have dismissed the appeal solely on the basis of the curative proviso in section 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.