R. v. Meltzer and Laison, (1989) 96 N.R. 391 (SCC)

• Judge: Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, LeDain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 29, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 96 N.R. 391 (SCC);1989 CanLII 68 (SCC);49 CCC (3d) 453;JE 89-1016;[1989] ACS no 75;70 CR (3d) 383;7 WCB (2d) 298;[1989] 1 SCR 1764;[1989] SCJ No 75 (QL);96 NR 391;41 CRR 39

R. v. Meltzer (1989), 96 N.R. 391 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Leonard Earl Meltzer (appellant) v. Harry Laison and Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(20041)

Indexed As: R. v. Meltzer and Laison

Supreme Court of Canada

Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, LeDain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.

June 29, 1989.

Summary:

Police obtained evidence under a wiretap authorization and a renewal of the authorization. The Crown tendered the evidence at the accused's preliminary hearing and the accused was committed to stand trial. The accused applied, before trial, under Part IV.1 of the Criminal Code to set aside the renewal.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from final orders of an authorizing or renewing judge. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court stated that the review of an authorization or renewal, being an interlocutory matter in a criminal proceeding, was not appealable under the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms afforded no right of appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4825

Appeals - Indictable offences - Right of appeal - From interlocutory decision - A superior court judge dismissed a pretrial application to set aside a wiretap authorization renewal - The Supreme Court of Canada held that review of a wiretap authorization or renewal was criminal, not civil, and no appeal lay under the British Columbia Court of Appeal Act - The court stated that the superior court judge's decision was an interlocutory matter and not appealable under the Criminal Code, or pursuant to any right under the Charter - The court stated "I leave open the question of whether these words ['a right of appeal must exist from orders granting authorizations and renewals'] frame a question of law which would be cognizable as a ground of appeal against conviction upon the completion of the trial".

Criminal Law - Topic 5283.1

Evidence - Witnesses - Interception of private communications - Authority for - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4825 above].

Criminal Law - Topic 5289

Evidence - Witnesses - Interception of private communications - Appeals - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4825 above].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321, folld. [para. 1].

R. v. Turangan and Chui (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 249 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Cass (1985), 71 A.R. 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Storgoff, [1945] S.C.R. 526, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 2 C.R.R. 76, refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8.

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27), sect. 92(14).

Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 7, sect. 6.

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 178.13(3)(b) [para. 3]; sect. 178.14(1)(a)(ii), sect. 482 [para. 11]; sect. 602, sect. 603, sect. 605, sect. 618, sect. 719, sect. 748 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Leonard T. Doust and Donald McKay, for the appellant;

A.G. Henderson and M.J. Carstairs, for Her Majesty the Queen.

Solicitors of Record:

Doust & Smith, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Dumoulin, Black, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, Harry Laison;

Ministry of the Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen.

This appeal was heard on April 28 and 29, 1988, before Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 29, 1989, McIntyre, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada in both official languages.

Beetz and Le Dain, JJ., took no part in the judgment.