R. v. Blizzard (A.J.) et al., (2003) 268 N.B.R.(2d) 11 (TD)

• Judge: Glennie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: October 23, 2003
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2003), 268 N.B.R.(2d) 11 (TD);2003 NBQB 425

R. v. Blizzard (A.J.) (2003), 268 N.B.R.(2d) 11 (TD);

    268 R.N.-B.(2e) 11; 704 A.P.R. 11

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.010

Her Majesty the Queen v. Angus Jason Blizzard, Kevin Michael Mailman, Nathan Gionet, William Charles Hadland

(S/CR/19/00; 2003 NBQB 425)

Indexed As: R. v. Blizzard (A.J.) et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Glennie, J.

October 23, 2003.

Summary:

The accused sought to exclude evidence obtained as a result of a wiretap authoriza­tion order for the period May 27, 2000 to July 25, 2000.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at [2003] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 154, held that the authorization was not valid after June 22, 2000 and that any interceptions made after June 22 were obtained through an infringe­ment of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that any intercep­tions made after June 22 were not admissible in evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveillance - Interception of private communications - The accused were charged with drug traf­ficking offences - Evidence had been obtained against them through a wiretap authorization for a private residence for the period May 27, 2000 to July 25, 2000 - The trial judge found that the authorization was invalid after June 22, 2000 because it exceeded the "period requested" in the affidavit in support and interceptions made thereafter were obtained through an in­fringement of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the post June 22 interceptions were not admissible - The court considered the following factors: the evidence was non-conscriptive; while the error respecting the date in the affidavit was technical, it was part of a pattern of gross carelessness in its preparation and there was an overall failure to disclose all current, relevant and correct information; there was no urgency; the level of obtrusiveness was high; the of­fences were serious; and the interceptions gathered after June 22 were crucial.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.5

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video sur­veillance) - Application for - Evidence in support - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Blizzard et al. (2002), 247 N.B.R.(2d) 203; 641 A.P.R. 203; 2002 CarswellNB 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Pope (B.) (1998), 219 A.R. 85; 179 W.A.C. 85; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Couture (1998), 129 C.C.C.(3d) 302 (Que. C.A.), appld. [para. 13].

R. v. Russell (M.C.) et al. (1999), 27 B.C.T.C. 81 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Dellapenna (R.N.) (1995), 62 B.C.A.C. 32; 103 W.A.C. 32; 31 C.R.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Harris and Lighthouse Video Centres Ltd. (1987), 20 O.A.C. 26; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Pilarinos (D.) et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 1725 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Duarte - see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 67].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hubbard, R.W., Brauti, P.M., and Fenton, S.K., Wiretapping and Other Electronic Surveillance: Law and Procedure (2001) (Looseleaf), pp. vii [para. 68]; 10-37 [para. 41].

Counsel:

Gerald H. McCracken, Q.C., on behalf of the Crown;

Hazen L. Brien, on behalf of Angus Jason Blizzard;

Brian D. Munro, on behalf of Kevin Michael Mailman;

Margaret Gallagher, on behalf of Nathan Gionet;

J. Anderson Ritchie, on behalf of William Charles Hadland.

This application was heard on October 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21, 2003, by Glennie, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following decision on October 23, 2003.