The appellants were charged with conspiracy to import marijuana based on private communications intercepted under three judicial authorizations.
The authorizations included a 'resort to' clause permitting interception at any place in British Columbia resorted to by the named persons, which the police used to tap public pay telephones and surreptitiously enter residential premises.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the 'resort to' clauses were lawful under the Criminal Code, the failure to include minimizing conditions for public pay telephones and the surreptitious entry into private dwellings without specific authorization violated section 8 of the Charter.
However, the Court admitted the evidence under section 24(2) because the police acted in good faith based on the law as it was understood at the time, and dismissed the appeal.
