R. v. Sapara (J.) et al., (2002) 313 A.R. 201 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 2002
• Citations: (2002), 313 A.R. 201 (QB);2002 ABQB 321

R. v. Sapara (J.) (2002), 313 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. AP.022

Her Majesty the Queen v. James Sapara and Jerome Morin

(Action No. 981630915Q2; 2002 ABQB 321)

Indexed As: R. v. Sapara (J.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

March 25, 2002.

Summary:

Sapara and Morin were charged with secret commissions offences contrary to s. 426(1) of the Criminal Code. The police had obtained an order authorizing electronic interception under s. 184.2 of the Criminal Code. The accused argued that the manner in which the order was obtained violated their s. 8 Charter rights. Submissions on any available remedy under s. 24(2) of the Charter were deferred until the determination of the s. 8 issue.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the authorization, holding that the accused's s. 8 Charter rights were infringed.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveillance - Interception of private communications - A police officer obtained an authorization to intercept private communications (Criminal Code, s. 184.2) - The information in the affidavit supporting the application was provided entirely by an informer - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the authorizations, holding that the police conduct in presenting the affidavit and the judge's decision to grant the authorization were unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter - There were seriously misleading omissions and subtleties in the affidavit related to the informer's credibility - The officer erroneously believed that his job was to provide only information that would show reasonable grounds to believe that information would be obtained - This was inconsistent with deference to the judge's judicial function and duties and the officer's duty to provide full, frank and fair disclosure regardless of his opinion of admissibility or significance - There was no evidence of the reliability of the informer's information - The affidavit's contents, amplified on review, did not provide a reasonable basis for the authorization - Further, the authorization should be quashed to preserve the integrity of the pre-authorization process.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Application for - Section 184.2 of the Criminal Code provided that a person could apply for an order authorizing the interception of private communications where one of the parties consented to the interception - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "if a Court Order authorized the broad array of means, those means could be sufficiently described in the authorization Order using the words of the Code. This does not mean that the police should be encouraged in all cases to ask for all potential means to provide them with a future discretion (during the currency of the Order) to use any and all means that prove most convenient, regardless of any differences in the degree of intrusion on Constitutional values. The authorizing Judge in exercising legal control should set out 'terms and conditions that the judge considers advisable in the public interest' under s. 184.2(4)(d) of the Criminal Code." - See paragraph 136.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.1

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Application for - Where application based on informant's statements - [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 - A police officer obtained an authorization to intercept private communications (Criminal Code, s. 184.2), with respect to Sapara and Jerome Morin - The affidavit supporting the application had been based soley on information provided by Ronald Morin - The affidavit did not disclose, inter alia, that Ronald was facing charges for fraud and theft - Jerome had implicated Ronald - The Crown argued, inter alia, that this failure was harmless because Ronald was entitled to the presumption of innocence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument, stating that "A Judge might well consider such a factor, but it would not be mandatory to do so in this context. In any event, the Judge should have the relevant information to make such a decision." - Omitting the explanation of the charges barred understanding Ronald's motives - See paragraphs 90 to 101.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.5

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Application for - Evidence in support - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the fact that an affidavit filed in an application to obtain an authorization to intercept private communications might contain hearsay, double hearsay or matters which could be inadmissible in a later trial would not "automatically" collapse the legality of the authorization - The court disagreed with the position that "an authorizing judge must always be able to assess from the affidavit the admissibility of earlier obtained evidence before factoring it into the decision to be made" - Compliance with the duty to disclose fully, frankly and fairly should usually reveal what should be known by the judge - See paragraph 208.

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 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5283

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Authority for - Judicial review of - General - Two accused challenged the issuance of an authorization to intercept private communications - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a judge on review had a residual discretion to quash the authorization - The court stated that the discretion would only apply if "(1) it is clear beyond doubt that in light of substantial misleading of the authorizing Judge by the police, it cannot really be said that the Judge made the judicial decision contemplated by the statute, and (2) the wilful misconduct of the state agency in making the application for the authorization Order is such that to allow the search to be retroactively approved would inevitably dissipate the statute's terms and damage the integrity of the judicial pre-authorization process." - See paragraph 238.

Criminal Law - Topic 5284

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Authority for - Form and content - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5274 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5287

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications (incl. video surveillance) - Authority for - Validity of - Severability of defective portions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered the issue of severance of offending portions of an order authorizing the interception of private communications - The court stated that "The test in [R. v. Grabowski (S.C.C.)] and [R. v. Lachance (S.C.C.)], it seems to me, is one which would allow severance where there is a clear dividing line between the good and bad parts of the authorization and where the edited result remains coherent and understandable." - See paragraph 211.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Morris (W.R.) (1998), 173 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 527 A.P.R. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 539 (C.A.), consd. [para. 3, footnote 1].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 449; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 38 C.R.(5th) 307, affing. (1998), 109 B.C.A.C. 131; 177 W.A.C. 131; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 315 (C.A.), consd. [para. 3, footnote 2].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, reving. (1988), 27 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 64 C.R.(3d) 193; 43 C.R.R. 252 (C.A.), consd. [para. 3, footnote 3].

R. v. Duarté - 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; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 240; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278; 71 O.R.(2d) 575, affing. (1987), 22 O.A.C. 311; 61 O.R.(2d) 385; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 60 C.R.(3d) 142; 33 C.R.R. 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

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; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, reving. [1983] 5 W.W.R. 43; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 40; 5 C.C.C.(3d) 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 5].

R. v. Golden (I.V.) (2001), 279 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 201; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 18; 47 C.R.(5th) 1 (S.C.C.), reving. [1999] O.J. No. 5585 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 6].

R. v. Le (N.O.) (2001), 160 B.C.A.C. 46; 261 W.A.C. 46; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 146 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2002), 292 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 7].

R. v. Cinous (J.) (2002), 285 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), reving. (2000), 143 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 8].

R. v. Wilson (J.W.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291; 108 N.R. 207; 107 A.R. 321; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 142; 77 C.R.(3d) 137; 74 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 188; 48 C.R.R. 107, affing. (1987), 76 A.R. 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 9].

R. v. Titus, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 259; 46 N.R. 477; 33 C.R.(3d) 17; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 577, refd to. [para. 97, footnote 10].

R. v. Gassyt (P.) and Markowitz (A.) (1998), 114 O.A.C. 147; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 546 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 244 N.R. 400; 126 O.A.C. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 11].

R. v. Harris and Lighthouse Video Centres Ltd. (1987), 20 O.A.C. 26; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 57 C.R.(3d) 356 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1987] 2 S.C.R. vii; 86 N.R. 400; 25 O.A.C. 240; 38 C.C.C.(3d) vi, refd to. [para. 103, footnote 12].

R. v. Richard (A.N.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 896; 195 N.R. 394; 150 N.S.R.(2d) 239; 436 A.P.R. 239; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 192, reving. (1995), 141 N.S.R.(2d) 103; 403 A.P.R. 103; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 441; 27 W.C.B.(2d) 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103, footnote 13].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 481; 34 C.R.R. 54; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145, affing. (1984), 17 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 14].

R. v. Charland (D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1006; 221 N.R. 76; 209 A.R. 161; 160 W.A.C. 161; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 12 C.R.(5th) 227, affing. (1996), 187 A.R. 161; 127 W.A.C. 161; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 300; 2 C.R.(5th) 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108, footnote 15].

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, affing. (1986), 17 O.A.C. 141; 54 C.R.(3d) 120; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 26 C.R.R. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109, footnote 16].

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) 257; 46 C.R.R. 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 577; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 109, footnote 17].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104; [1993] 8 W.W.R. 287; 12 Alta. L.R.(3d) 305; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 203; 24 C.R.(4th) 47; 17 C.R.R.(2d) 297, affing. (1991), 116 A.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109, footnote 18].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Future Electroniqué Inc. et al. - see Québec (Procureur général) v. Future Electroniqué Inc. et al.

Québec (Procureur général) v. Future Electroniqué Inc. et al. (2001), 195 D.L.R.(4th) 575; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 403; 42 C.R.(5th) 132 (Que. C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2001), 274 N.R. 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 109, footnote 19].

R. v. Berger - see Berger v. R.

Berger v. R. (1989), 74 Sask.R. 198; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109, footnote 20].

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, affing. [1983] 3 W.W.R. 385; 42 A.R. 93; 147 D.L.R.(3d) 420; 24 Alta. L.R.(2d) 307 (C.A.), consd. [para. 110, footnote 21].

R. v. Cheecham (1989), 80 Sask.R. 74; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 498; 8 W.C.B.(2d) 612 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111, footnote 23].

R. v. Gatfield (H.), [2002] O.J. No. 166 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 113, footnote 25].

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. 114, footnote 26].

R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 67 C.R.(3d) 224; 37 C.R.R. 252, reving. [1986] R.J.Q. 2944; 4 Q.A.C. 261; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 54 C.R.(3d) 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126, footnote 28].

R. v. Chesson and Vanweenan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 148; 87 N.R. 115; 90 A.R. 347; 43 C.C.C(3d) 353; [1988] 6 W.W.R. 193; 61 Alta. L.R.(2d) 289; 65 C.R.(3d) 193, reving. in part [1985] 6 W.W.R. 289; 62 A.R. 64; 39 Alta. L.R.(2d) 331; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 68; 47 C.R.(3d) 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134, footnote 29].

R. v. Lawrence, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 619; 87 N.R. 112; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 220 A.P.R. 45; 63 C.R.(3d) 398; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 192, affing. (1987), 66 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 126; 204 A.P.R. 126 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 134, footnote 30].

R. v. Lyons, Prevedoros and McGuire, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 633; 56 N.R. 6; 58 A.R. 2; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 43 C.R.(3d) 151, affing. (1982), 69 C.C.C.(3d) 318 (B.C.C.A.), affing. (1979), 52 C.C.C.(2d) 113 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 135, footnote 33].

R. v. Diamond, [1982] 5 W.W.R. 351; 16 Man.R.(2d) 424 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 34].

R. v. Badovinac (1977), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 35].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404; 33 C.R.(4th) 147; 24 C.R.R.(2d) 51; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 74, affing. (1993), 124 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 345 A.P.R. 63; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 37].

R. v. Noble (1984), 6 O.A.C. 11; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 146; 42 C.R.(3d) 209; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 216; 48 O.R.(2d) 643; 12 C.R.R. 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. Mac (M.K.) (2002), 287 N.R. 75; 159 O.A.C. 33 (S.C.C.), reving. (2001), 140 O.A.C. 270; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 56; 40 C.R.(5th) 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 162, footnote 39].

R. v. Wonderland Girls Ltd. (1996), 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 219; 438 A.P.R. 219; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 632 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 162, footnote 40].

R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; 47 N.R. 288; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 121 A.P.R. 142; 31 C.R.(3d) 97; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 568; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 385, reving. (1980), 31 N.B.R.(2d) 371; 75 A.P.R. 371 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167, footnote 41].

R. v. Sutton (K.M.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 595; 262 N.R. 384; 230 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 593 A.P.R. 205; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 38 C.R.(5th) 39; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 411, affing. (1999), 222 N.B.R.(2d) 78; 570 A.P.R. 78; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167, footnote 42].

R. v. Portante (A.) - see R. v. Perciballi (P.) et al.

R. v. Perciballi (P.) et al. (2001), 146 O.A.C. 1; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167, footnote 43].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 24 C.R.(5th) 365, reving. (1997), 96 O.A.C. 372; 5 C.R.(5th) 391; 32 O.R.(3d) 181; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 172, footnote 45].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 1; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 634; 7 C.R.(5th) 101, reving. (1995), 54 B.C.A.C. 228; 88 W.A.C. 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 172, footnote 46].

R. v. Perras; R. v. Robertson; R. v. Lastuka (1985), 62 A.R. 226; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 173, footnote 47].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 1 C.R.(4th) 62; [1991] 1 W.W.R. 193; 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 157; 50 C.R.R. 285, reving. (1988), 46 C.C.C.(3d) 194; 43 C.R.R. 364 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 174, footnote 49].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 450; 38 C.R.(4th) 330; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 28 C.R.R.(2d) 189, affing. (1994), 69 O.A.C. 296; 16 O.R.(3d) 786; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 61; 20 C.R.R.(2d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175, footnote 50].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 16 C.R.(4th) 273; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 193; 40 M.V.R.(2d) 204; 5 Alta. L.R.(3d) 322; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 65, reving. [1991] 5 W.W.R. 519; 117 A.R. 165; 2 W.A.C. 165; 80 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 175, footnote 51].

R. v. Gill (1980), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 169; 18 C.R.(3d) 390; 118 D.L.R.(3d) 618 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 175, footnote 52].

Restaurant Le Clémenceau Inc. v. Drouin, J., et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 706; 77 N.R. 72; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 381; 42 D.L.R.(4th) 761, refd to. [para. 177, footnote 55].

R. v. Fliss (P.W.) (2002), 283 N.R. 120; 163 B.C.A.C. 1; 267 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), affing. (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 89; 227 W.A.C. 89; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 179, footnote 58].

R. v. Wong et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36; 120 N.R. 34; 45 O.A.C. 250; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 460; 1 C.R.(4th) 1; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 277, affing. (1987), 19 O.A.C. 365; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 51; 56 C.R.(3d) 352 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 181, footnote 60].

R. v. Law (K.L.) et al. - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al. (2002), 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270 (S.C.C.), reving. (2000), 225 N.B.R.(2d) 85; 578 A.P.R. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 181, footnote 61].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270; 18 C.R.(4th) 374; 93 D.T.C. 5018; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 510; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 350; [1993] 1 C.T.C. 111; 13 C.R.R.(2d) 65, affing. [1991] 1 F.C. 688; 122 N.R. 47; [1991] 1 C.T.C. 125; 91 D.T.C. 5055, supplementary reasons [1991] 1 F.C. 712; [1991] 1 C.T.C. 408; 91 D.T.C. 5134 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 184, footnote 62].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 43; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; 78 B.C.L.R.(2d) 257; [1993] 4 W.W.R. 225; 20 C.R.(4th) 104; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 456; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 193; [1993] 1 C.T.C. 301; 93 D.T.C. 5137, refd to. [para. 184, footnote 63].

R. v. Grant (I.M.) (1998), 131 Man.R.(2d) 36; 187 W.A.C. 36; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 185, footnote 65].

R. v. S.A.B. et al., [2001] 11 W.W.R. 525; 293 A.R. 1; 257 W.A.C. 1; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 510; 47 C.R.(5th) 115 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2002), 293 N.R. 192; 303 A.R. 200; 273 W.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 185, footnote 66].

R. v. Smyk (K.W.) et al., [1994] 1 W.W.R. 513; 88 Man.R.(2d) 303; 51 W.A.C. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 187, footnote 68].

R. v. Carrier (A.J.) (1996), 181 A.R. 284; 116 W.A.C. 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188, footnote 70].

R. v. Kyllo (S.B.) et al. (2001), 157 B.C.A.C. 254; 256 W.A.C. 254; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 560 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188, footnote 71].

Adrien v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) - see Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt) Re.

Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 36 O.R.(3d) 418n; 50 C.B.R.(3d) 163; 33 C.C.E.L.(2d) 173; 98 C.L.L.C. 210-006, refd to. [para. 190, footnote 74].

R. v. Morin (J.) (2001), 286 A.R. 109; 253 W.A.C. 109; 84 C.R.R.(2d) 186 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 284 N.R. 199; 299 A.R. 197; 266 W.A.C. 197 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 193, footnote 77].

R. v. Feldman (A.F.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 832; 178 N.R. 140; 53 B.C.A.C. 158; 87 W.A.C. 158; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 575, affing. (1994), 42 B.C.A.C. 31; 67 W.A.C. 31; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 195, footnote 78].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 94, affing. [1994] R.J.Q. 308; 60 Q.A.C. 173; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 199, footnote 80].

R. v. Lachance, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1490; 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; 50 C.R.R. 260, reving. (1988), 27 O.A.C. 45 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 207, footnote 81].

R. v. Lewis (W.M.J.) (1997), 214 A.R. 371 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 207, footnote 82].

R. v. Kehr (1906), 11 P.O.L.R. 517; 11 C.C.C. 52 (Ont.), refd to. [para. 208, footnote 83].

R. v. Grabowski, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 434; 63 N.R. 32, refd to. [para. 210, footnote 85].

R. v. Monte (E.) et al., [1993] O.J. No. 4174 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 214, footnote 86].

R. v. Heikel and Sutton (1992), 125 A.R. 298; 14 W.A.C. 298; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 72 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 217, footnote 87].

R. v. Grewall (A.S.) et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 906 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 219, footnote 89].

R. v. Shayesteh (S.) (1996), 94 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 31 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 222, footnote 90].

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. 228, footnote 92].

R. v. Etherington (J.C.) et al. (1996), 183 A.R. 138 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 230, footnote 94].

R. v. Brake (D.W.M.) (2001), 201 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 261; 605 A.P.R. 261 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 231, footnote 96].

R. v. Donaldson et al. (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 294; 48 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 232, footnote 97].

R. v. Unger (K.W.) and Houlahan (T.L.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 284; 41 W.A.C. 284; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 228 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1993), 164 N.R. 221; 92 Man.R.(2d) 79; 61 W.A.C. 79; 84 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 232, footnote 98].

R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 46; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 13 C.R.(5th) 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 233, footnote 99].

R. v. Kesselring (A.C.) (2000), 132 O.A.C. 41; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 233, footnote 100].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 485; 39 C.R.R. 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 234, footnote 101].

R. v. Lamy (R.M.J.) (1993), 85 Man.R.(2d) 179; 41 W.A.C. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 234, footnote 104].

R. v. Hosie (G.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 281; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 235, footnote 105].

R. v. Novel (P.C.), [2001] A.R. Uned. 88 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 235, footnote 106].

R. v. Monroe (D.T.) (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 256; 147 W.A.C. 256; 8 C.R.(5th) 324; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 316 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 235, footnote 107].

R. v. Hallman (M.), [2001] B.C.T.C. 1355; 2001 CarswellBC 2161 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 235, footnote 108].

R. v. Sutherland (M.) (2000), 139 O.A.C. 53; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 231; 39 C.R.(5th) 310; 52 O.R.(3d) 27; 78 C.R.R.(2d) 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 236, footnote 109].

R. v. Branton (D.) and 1254719 Ontario Ltd. (2001), 144 O.A.C. 187; 199 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 139; 44 C.R.(5th) 275 (C.A.), affing. [2000] O.T.C. 231 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 236, footnote 110].

R. v. Latimer (R.D.) et al. (1997), 199 A.R. 387 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 236, footnote 113].

R. v. Pilarinos (D.) et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 1690 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 238, footnote 115].

R. v. Guilbride (K.P.) et al., [2002] B.C.J. No. 474 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 241, footnote 116].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 184.2 [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 190, footnote 73].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 131 [para. 189, footnote 72].

Watt, David, The Protection of Privacy Act, ss. 4.A.4, 4.D.1 to 4.D.5, pp. 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-30 to 4-35 [para. 137, footnote 36].

Counsel:

Sheila Brown (Alberta Department of Justice - Special Prosecutions Branch), for the Crown;

Robert H. Davidson, Q.C. (Davidson Gregory), for the accused, Sapara;

Gwilym J. Davies (Abbey Davies), for the accused, Morin.

This application was heard by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who released the following decision on March 25, 2002.