Supreme Court of Canada
R. v. Brese, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 333
Date: 1984-10-31
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant;
and
Gary Gordon Brese, Allan Richard Andrews, David Frederick Ritch, Robert Cody McCutcheon and Avora Ann Crawshaw Respondents.
File No.: 17243.
1984: October 31.
Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ALBERTA
Criminal law—Evidence—Admissibility—Interception of private communications—Order authorizing interception of telecommunications made by a named person and interception of telecommunications in respect of certain phone number at certain location—Validity of order authorizing interception.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal, sub nom. R. v. Ritch et al. (1982), 1982 ABCA 164, 69 C.C.C. (2d) 289, 21 Alta. L.R. (2d) 152, 37 A.R. 614, quashing the convictions of the accused persons on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics. Appeal dismissed.
Julius A. Isaac, Q.C., and Shelagh R. Creagh, for the appellant.
A.C. Rice, for the respondent Brese.
Howard Rubin, for the respondents Andrews and Ritch.
C.A. Kent, for the respondent McCutcheon.
B. Beresh, for the respondent Crawshaw.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—It will not be necessary to call upon you Mr. Rice, Mr. Beresh, Miss Kent. We are in substantial agreement with the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: R. Tassé, Ottawa.
[Page 334]
Solicitor for the respondent Brese: A.C. Rice, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondents Andrews and Ritch: Howard Rubin, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the respondent McCutcheon: C.A. Kent, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondent Crawshaw: B. Beresh, Edmonton.