The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents on charges of conspiracy to break and enter and commit theft.
The trial judge had excluded surreptitiously intercepted communications under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the wiretap authorization breached s. 8 due to inaccurate information in the supporting affidavit.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in the threshold required to name a party in an authorization and in classifying the intercepted communications as conscriptive evidence.
A new trial was ordered for both respondents.
