Case LAW

Question 1

R v CHESSON & VANWEENAN

Answer 1

Gave definition of known persons
- known to exist by name or description
&
Reasonable grounds that the interception of their private communication may assist in the investigation

Question 2

R v SAMSON

Answer 2

Innocent parties may assist at named locations

This is the basket clause

Question 3

R v MAHAL

Answer 3

Categorizing know persons as principal and other is fine

Test for naming remains the same

Question 4

R v COMMISSO

Answer 4

Windfall evidence is admissible

Still need to disclose evidence of other offences

If focus of the investigation changes offence must be named

Question 5

R v ARUJO

Answer 5

Test for investigative necessity
- no other reasonable practical alternative

Full, frank, fair… clear & concise
- no boiler plate

Question 6

R v THOMPSON

Answer 6

Provided limiters for payphones

Must have RG for the use of a ‘resort to’ clause

Covert entries to named locations only
-private dwellings

Question 7

R v PAPADOPOULOS

Answer 7

You cannot use the resort to clause for police facilities/cell blocks

Question 8

R v WIGGINS

Answer 8

Use of the straw man

Low man on the totem pole should not be the affiant

Question 9

R v GRABOWSKI

Answer 9

Wire the world

Cannot name unknow persons at unknown locations

Question 10

R v McCAFFERTY

Answer 10

Interception commences at the moment of installation

No pre-installation prior to a signed authorization, doing so amount to a trespass

Question 11

R v BROYLES

Answer 11

IN custody intercepts

Agent of the state cannot elicit information regarding the offence

Question 12

R v DEBOT

Answer 12

Informant reliability

The 3 C’s
Compelling, Credible, Corroborated

Question 13

R v MacDonald

Answer 13

Anonymous Tipsters

Information cannot stand alone to provide RG for the search

Question 14

R v LAND

Answer 14

Must disclose to the issuing judge that a confidential informant is a named party

Lost the authorization because of fraud

Question 15

R v GARAFOLI

Answer 15

The motion attacks the contents of the affidavit to show it is misleading, inaccurate, fraudulent

Defence must establish that cross exam of the affiant will elicit testimony to discredit the exostence of one of the preconditions to the issuance of the authorization

The test on review is whether there was any basis before thenissuing justice for the issuance of the authorization

Codified the editing process

Question 16

R v DUARTE

Answer 16

Agent of the state must seek an authorization where one party consents, if there is REOP (GAVE US 1 PARTY)

You can have a REOP even if committing a ceiminal offence