R. v. Caissey, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 451, 2008 SCC 65

Case Summary

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marihuana, arguing that the search warrant was invalid because the information provided by a first-time informant lacked corroboration of criminal particulars. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that corroboration of a criminal particular is not strictly required to establish the reliability of an informant's information for the issuance of a search warrant.

Citation: R. v. Caissey, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 451, 2008 SCC 65

Date: 20081120

Docket: 32436

Between:

Lee Michael Caissey Appellant

and

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

and -

Attorney General of Ontario Intervener

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 3)

McLachlin C.J. (Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring)

R. v. Caissey, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 451, 2008 SCC 65

Lee Michael Caissey Appellant

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

and

Attorney General of Ontario Intervener

Indexed as: R. v. Caissey

Neutral citation: 2008 SCC 65.

File No.: 32436.

2008: November 20.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta

Criminal law — Search warrant — Validity — Reliability of first‑time informant — Information about criminal particulars uncorroborated — Reliability of informant’s information sufficient in context of other factors to justify issuance of search warrant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (McFadyen, Picard and Martin JJ.A.), [2008] 4 W.W.R. 100, 84 Alta. L.R. (4th) 226, 422 A.R. 208, 415 W.A.C. 208, 227 C.C.C. (3d) 322, [2007] A.J. No. 1342 (QL), 2007 CarswellAlta 1640, 2007 ABCA 380, affirming the accused’s conviction for possession of marihuana. Appeal dismissed.

Daryl J. Royer and Akram Attia, for the appellant.

Ronald C. Reimer and Greg Rice, for the respondent.

Michael Bernstein, for the intervener.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

1The Chief Justice — This is an appeal as of right on a question of law.

2The dissenting judge advanced the view that only corroboration of some criminal particular of the offence offered the necessary assurance for the issuance of the warrant. This is the question of law that brings the appeal before us. On this issue, we agree with the test adopted by the majority.

3Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: Attia Reeves Tensfeldt Snow, Edmonton.

Solicitor for the respondent: Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Edmonton.

Solicitor for the intervener: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.