R. v. Dersch (W.W.) et al., (1990) 116 N.R. 340 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C., Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: November 22, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 116 N.R. 340 (SCC)

R. v. Dersch (W.W.) (1990), 116 N.R. 340 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Wilfred Wayne Dersch, Marianne Payne, Raymond John Waller, Grethe Elise Waller and Ralph Ross Harris (appellants) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(20580)

Indexed As: R. v. Dersch (W.W.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C., Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.

November 22, 1990.

Summary:

The accused were charged with various offences involving drug trafficking. They applied under s. 178.14(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code (1970) to have access to the contents of the sealed packets containing the affidavit filed in support of the wiretap authorizations.

The British Columbia County Court, per Wetmore, Co. Ct. J., allowed the application in an oral judgment. The Crown applied for certiorari to quash the decision of Wetmore, Co. Ct. J., and for an order preventing the judge from making available the material to the accused.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, per Murray, J., in a decision reported (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 346, allowed the Crown's application, holding that Wetmore, Co. Ct. J., lacked jurisdiction to release the sealed packet where there was no prima facie case of misconduct on the part of the applicant for the authorization. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1987), 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 562; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 700; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 435; 59 C.R.(3d) 289, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed, arguing that the Court of Appeal erred in construing s. 178.14 of the Criminal Code as imposing a burden on the accused to show prima facie misconduct by the applicant before the accused may inspect the affidavit filed to obtain an electronic search order.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the order of Wetmore, Co. Ct. J. The court rejected the notion that prima facie misconduct need be shown by an accused who seeks access to a sealed packet.

*Editor's Note: This decision is one of four cases released concurrently dealing with wiretap issues. For completeness all four cases will be reported together in the National Reporter, the Québec Appeal Cases and the Ontario Appeal Cases. Also note that Dickson, C.J.C., was the Chief Justice at the time of hearing and Lamer, C.J.C., was the Chief Justice at the time of judgment.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - The Criminal Code, s. 178.14, permitted a judge to open a sealed packet containing material supporting a wiretap authorization - Pre-Charter cases established that exceptional circumstances were required to justify access (the restricted access cases) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the restricted access cases' interpretation of s. 178.14 should no longer be applied because of the right to make full answer and defence and the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure in ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter - It is sufficient to warrant disclosure of the sealed packet material if the evidence is challenged and access is required to permit full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Droits et libertés - Cote 3133

Proces - Application reguliere de la loi, justice fondamentale et audiences equitables - Affaires criminelles et quasi-criminelles - Droit de l'accusé de présenter une réponse et une défence complètes - [voir Civil Rights - Topic 3133].

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting material - Opening of sealed packet - The Criminal Code, s. 178.14, permitted a judge to open a sealed packet containing material supporting a wiretap authorization - Pre-Charter cases established that exceptional circumstances were required to justify access (the restricted access cases) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the restricted access cases' interpretation of s. 178.14 should no longer be applied because of the right to make full answer and defence and the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure in ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter - It is sufficient to warrant disclosure of the sealed packet material if the evidence is challenged and access is required to permit full answer and defence - See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 5275

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Confidentiality of supporting material - Opening of sealed packet - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the procedure for applying for access to the contents of a sealed packet under s. 178.14(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code - See paragraph 25.

Droit criminel - Cote 5275

Preuve et témoins - Interception de communications privées - Demande d'interception - Caractère confidential des documents à l'appui - [voir Criminal Law - Topic 5275].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Garofoli (1990), 116 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 1 et seq.].

R. v. Lachance (1990), 116 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Zito (1990), 116 N.R. 357, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 155, refd to. [paras. 3 and 10].

R. v. Finlay and Grellette (1985), 11 O.A.C. 279; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 48 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 3, 12].

R. v. Dersch (1986), 32 C.C.C.(3d) 346 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Dersch v. Canada (Attorney General) (1987), 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Rowbotham (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 8, 12, 22].

R. v. Thompson (1990), 114 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Lyons, Prevedoros and McGuire, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633; 56 N.R. 6, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Playford (1987), 24 O.A.C. 161; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [paras. 14, 18].

R. v. Parmar (1987), 34 C.C.C.(3d) 260, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Williams (1985), 7 O.A.C. 201; 44 C.R.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Hunter (1987), 19 O.A.C. 131; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, generally [para. 8 et seq.]; sect. 7 [para. 15]; sect. 8 [para. 17].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 178.13(2)(d) [para. 11]; sect. 178.14 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 178.14(1)(a)(ii) [paras. 2, 11, 20, 25, 28]; Part IV.1 [paras. 8, 11, 17, 27].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 187(1) [para. 1].

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968), 18 U.S.C.A., Title III, sect. 2510, sect. 2511, sect. 2512, sect. 2513, sect. 2514, sect. 2515, sect. 2516, sect. 2517, sect. 2518, sect. 2519, sect. 2520 [para. 8]; sect. 2518(5) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Watt, David, Law of Electronic Surveillance in Canada (1979), pp. 251, 252 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Thomas R. Berger and Howard Rubin, for the appellants;

S. David Frankel, Q.C., for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

K.S. Westlake, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants, Dersch, Payne and Harris;

Rubin & Associates, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellants, Waller and Waller;

John C. Tait, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 2, 1989, before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C., * La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the court was rendered in both official languages on November 22, 1990, including the following opinions:

Sopinka, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 26;

McLachlin, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 27 to 30.