R. v. McKay (T.C.) et al., (1992) 136 A.R. 27 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 19, 1992
• Citations: (1992), 136 A.R. 27 (QB)

R. v. McKay (T.C.) (1992), 136 A.R. 27 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Terry Claude McKay, John Robert Gaw, John Ronald Skidd, Edmond Frank Presault and William Cecil Paul

(Action No. 9201-0306-C5)

Indexed As: R. v. McKay (T.C.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

October 19, 1992.

Summary:

The accused were charged with conspiracy to traffic in narcotics, trafficking and pos­session for the purpose of trafficking. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of intercepted private communications.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the wiretap authorizations were lawful and the private communications were admis­sible.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Supporting affidavits - The accused argued that an affidavit sworn in support of wire tap authorizations was misleading because it was not clear whether the affiant had personal knowledge of the circumstances or was relying on informa­tion and belief - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench examined the affidavit and rejected the accused's argument - See paragraphs 33 to 35.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Supporting affidavits - The accused argued that an affidavit sworn in support of wire tap authorizations was misleading because it contained hearsay (i.e., informa­tion from police surveillance and other sources which had been passed on the affiant police officer) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the use of hearsay in supporting affidavits - The court held that the authorization in this case was lawful - See paragraphs 36 to 52.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.4

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Requirement of investigative necessity - In a narcotics conspiracy case the accused argued that a wiretap authorization was unlawful because the affidavit sworn in support of the wiretap application did not show the ne­cessity for the authorization - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­cussed the test of "necessity" and rejected the accused's argument - See paragraphs 53 to 64.

Criminal Law - Topic 5310.2

Evidence and witnesses - Inadmissible private communications - Practice - Ad­mission of admissible interceptions - Editing transcripts - Voice identification - In a narcotics case involving several accused, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of intercepted private communications - The Crown presented transcripts of the tape recordings of the conversations - The transcripts indicated in writing what was said by each accused - Two of the accused argued that this written identification before the evidence was put to the jury was highly prejudicial to the accused, lending credibility to the Crown's allegations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the transcript had to be revised to identify the accuseds' voices by "Unknown Male No. ..." or "Unidentified Person No. ..." - The voices of persons not accused could be identified by name - See paragraphs 16 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Parsons - see R. v. Charette.

R. v. Charette (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 497 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1980] 1 S.C.R. 785; 33 N.R. 158, refd to. [paras. 3, 12].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1241; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, appld. [para. 3 et seq.].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Spennato (1991), 45 O.A.C. 367; 3 O.R.(3d) 409 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Corinthian (1992), 122 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 4, 6].

R. v. Dersch et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340; 43 O.A.C. 256; 36 Q.A.C. 258; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 132; 80 C.R.(3d) 299, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Zito (1990), 116 N.R. 357; 43 O.A.C. 273; 36 Q.A.C. 275; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 216; 80 C.R.(3d) 311 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Lachance (1990), 116 N.R. 325; 43 O.A.C. 241; 36 Q.A.C. 243; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 80 C.R.(3d) 374 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Innocente et al. (1991), 108 N.S.R.(2d) 54; 294 A.P.R. 54 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Hiscock (1991), 68 C.C.C.(3d) 182 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Aranda (1992), 6 O.R.(3d) 776 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Hiscock and Sauve (1992), 46 Q.A.C. 263; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 60].

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; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278; 71 O.R.(2d) 575, refd to. [paras. 7, 59].

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

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Therrien (1992), 129 A.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 225; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 481; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 321; 80 C.R.(3d) 129; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 596; 50 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Morrison (P.) (1989), 34 O.A.C. 50; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 34, 38, 62].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 49, refd to. [paras. 37, 62].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 357; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [paras. 37, 40, 62].

R. v. Brunelle (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 347 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Land (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 382 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 38, 59].

R. v. Keuork, Balian & Gharakhanian (1986), 27 C.C.C.(3d) 523 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Newell et al. (No. 1) (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 431 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Pascoe et al., [1988] B.C.D. Crim. Conv. 5450-01, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Garofoli et al. (1988), 27 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58 et seq.].

United States v. Tufaro (1983), 593 F. Supp. 476 (N.Y.D.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

People v. Baris (1986), 500 N.Y.S.2d 572 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 55, 58, 60].

R. v. Whitley (1987), 34 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [paras. 4, 28]; sect. 24(2) [paras. 4, 27, 28].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 185, sect. 186 [para. 7 et seq.]; sect. 189 [para. 4 et seq.]; sect. 189(5) [para. 20]; sect. 631(3), sect. 645(5) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

O'Reilly, Reviewing Wiretap Authoriz­ations - The Supreme Court Goes Through the Motions (1991), 80 C.R.(3d) 386, gen­erally [para. 6].

Rubin, Opening the Packet (1992), 5 Criminal Trial Lawyers Association Newsletter No. 3, generally [para. 6].

Watt, The Admissibility of Wiretap Evi­dence (1991), pp. 10, 20-22, 28 [para. 4]; 29 [para. 24].

Watt, Garofoliage: Deuxième Cru, 1990, pp. 7, 19-22, 29 [para. 4].

Watt, Electronic Surveillance: Double Double Toil and Trouble, generally [para. 4].

Counsel:

J. Kitsul and R. Stanners, for the Crown;

A. Wenngatz, for the accused, McKay;

B. Der, for the accused, Gaw;

R. Mitchell, for the accused, Skidd;

B. Edy, for the accused, Presault;

J. Phipps, for the accused, Paul.

This voir dire was held before Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following ruling on October 19, 1992.