Phillip Tsui

The applicants brought a motion to exclude wiretap evidence obtained during a police investigation into the manufacturing and trafficking of converted firearms.

They argued that the police failed to demonstrate the existence of a criminal organization, failed to establish investigative necessity, and engaged in a pattern of misrepresentation that subverted the pre-authorization process.

The court found that while there were insufficient grounds to establish a criminal organization and some misrepresentations existed in the affidavits, the investigative necessity requirement was met for the firearms offences.

After excising the misleading information, the court concluded that the authorizing judge could still have granted the authorizations.

The court declined to exercise its residual discretion to exclude the evidence, finding no deliberate attempt to subvert the prior authorization process.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with robbery while armed with an imitation firearm.

The Crown case depended primarily on eyewitness identification by the complainant, including a photo line-up identification and an in-court identification.

The court held that the photo line-up was problematic because the accused was the only person displaying distinctive features previously described by the witness, including a forehead scar and afro hairstyle.

Given the well‑recognized dangers of eyewitness identification and the lack of confirmatory evidence, the court assigned little weight to the identification evidence.

The Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted.