R. v. Shalala (R.H.), (2000) 224 N.B.R.(2d) 118 (CA)

• Judge: Ayles, Ryan and Drapeau, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: January 27, 2000
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 118 (CA);2000 CanLII 20260 (NB CA);224 NBR (2d) 118;[2000] NBJ No 14 (QL);45 WCB (2d) 203

R. v. Shalala (R.H.) (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 118 (CA);

    224 R.N.-B.(2e) 118; 574 A.P.R. 118

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: [2000] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.014

Raymond Haid Shalala (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(25/98/CA)

Indexed As: R. v. Shalala (R.H.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Ayles, Ryan and Drapeau, JJ.A.

January 27, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was charged with con­spiracy to import a narcotic contrary to s. 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and launder­ing pro­ceeds of crime contrary to s. 462.31 of the Code.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 197 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 504 A.P.R. 205, refused to quash the indictment, holding that it com­plied with ss. 581(1) and 581(3) of the Criminal Code and was not contrary to s. 11(a) of the Charter. In a decision reported 197 N.B.R.(2d) 223; 504 A.P.R. 223, the court upheld the consti­tutionality of Part VI of the Criminal Code. In a decision reported 198 N.B.R.(2d) 93; 506 A.P.R. 93, the court upheld the consti­tutionality of s. 186(4)(d) of the Code. In a decision reported 198 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 506 A.P.R. 1, the court held that various wiretap authorizations were valid. In a decision reported [1996] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 138, the court held that certain one party consent interceptions should be admitted and the notice of inten­tion to offer the interceptions as evidence were adequate. In a decision reported 197 N.B.R.(2d) 6; 504 A.P.R. 6, the court re­fused the accused's application for a change of venue on the basis of bias. In a decision reported at 197 N.B.R.(2d) 11; 506 A.P.R. 11, the court refused the accused's request to cross-examine six applicants for judicial authorization. In a decision reported [1996] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 139, the court held that the loss of audiotapes and video­tapes by the Crown, did not violate the accused's Charter rights. In a decision re­ported 198 N.B.R.(2d) 298; 506 A.P.R. 298, the court convicted the accused of conspir­acy to im­port a narcotic and acquitted him of launder­ing proceeds of crime. In a deci­sion reported 197 N.B.R.(2d) 326; 504 A.P.R. 326, the court sentenced the accused to 18 years' imprisonment. The accused appealed his conviction and applied for leave to ap­peal sentence.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the application for leave to appeal sentence.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveil­lance - Interception of private communi­cations - Prior to a 1993 amendment, ss. 189(1) to 189(4) of the Criminal Code required the Crown to prove the lawfulness of an inter­cepted private communication as a pre­requisite to its admissibility - An accused argued that the repeal of the Crown's obligation rendered Part VI of the Code contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed the constitutionality of Part VI - The court stated that "the effect of the 1993 amend­ments to s. 189 was to subject the evi­dence obtained as a result of the unlawful inter­ception of private communications to the test for admissibility that applies to all unlawful searches. That test brings into play s. 24(2) of the Charter. ... any legisla­tion that has the effect of appointing s. 24(2) of the Charter the arbiter of evidence admissibility cannot have the effect of rendering unconstitutional the statutory scheme that regulates the gathering of that evidence." - See paragraphs 66 to 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveil­lance - Interception of private communi­cations - The accused was charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to import narcotics - The Crown sought to introduce certain one party consent interceptions of conversa­tions between the accused and a police infor­mant - On a voir dire, the accused argued that the interceptions were contrary to s. 8 of the Charter (i.e., constituted an unrea­sonable search and seizure) and the evi­dence obtained should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter - The trial judge held that the one party consent interceptions were contrary to s. 8 of the Charter, but that the evidence obtained should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal - See para­graphs 95 to 97.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that "[a]mbiguity and flexibility must not be confused with vagueness leading to unconstitutionality. Vagueness in wording will justify invalidation of a legis­lative disposition in cases where the terms employed by the legislating body, viewed in their global context, fail to provide any useful guidance in framing the legal debate surrounding its application or in structuring the exercise of any discretion conferred by it. Invalidation, because of vagueness, can only occur when the terms employed, viewed in their global context, are so imprecise that courts are incapable of attributing to them a constant or settled meaning. Unquestionably, the standard for invalidation of legislation due to vagueness is high. Indeed, it is only after the court has exhausted its interpretive role that it will be appropriate for it to consider whether the impugned legislative disposi­tion truly suffers from vagueness to the point of being unconstitutional. That inter­pretive role requires the court to focus on the terms that are said to be impermissibly vague and to view them in the global context in which they are employed. ... Such a contextual approach requires the court to consider the history, purpose, subject-matter and nature of the impugned provision, societal values, related legis­lative provisions, and prior judicial inter­pre­tations of the provision itself and of the terms it employs." - See paragraphs 77 and 78.

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Void for vagueness doctrine - Section 186(4)(d) of the Criminal Code provided that an authorization to intercept a private communication should contain such other terms and conditions as the judge considered advisable in the public interest - An accused argued that s. 186(4)(d) violated s. 7 of the Charter because "public interest" was unduly vague - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed that s. 186(4)(d) was constitu­tional - "Public interest" was not intrinsi­cally vague to the point that its use in legislation was constitutionally impermis­sible - Further, the meaning of "public interest" was fleshed out by the context provided by s. 186(4), Part VI of the Code and the limits imposed s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 71 to 80.

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 - An ac­cused applied for a stay of proceedings or for the exclusion of one party consent wiretap evidence - He alleged that he was unable to test consent and to make full answer and defence because, inter alia, audiotapes and videotapes were missing - The trial judge held that the accused failed to establish that his Charter rights were infringed due to the missing evidence - The trial judge found that the loss of the evidence was not deliberate or through malice and there was not an air of reality that the missing evidence would assist the accused in a material way - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision - See paragraph 121.

Civil Rights - Topic 3136

Trials - Due process, fundamental jus­tice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to be in­formed of alleged offence - The accused was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine - He moved to quash the indict­ment on the ground that it failed to pro­vide details concerning the ingredients of the conspiracy, the amount of cocaine involved and the activity of the named individuals - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed that the indictment met the re­quirements of ss. 581(1) and 581(3) of the Criminal Code and s. 11(a) of the Charter - The indictment listed the con­spirators, set out the places where the conspiracy took form, provided the time frame of its exist­ence, specified its object, namely the im­portation of cocaine and referred to the pertinent statutory disposi­tions - See para­graphs 49 to 53.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8405

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Right to be in­formed of specific offence charged - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3136 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8626

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Regulation of guaranteed rights - Vague­ness rule - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3107 ].

Courts - Topic 686

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - By trial judge - Shalala was charged with conspir­acy to import a narcotic and laundering proceeds of crime - He intended to move for an order excluding wiretap evidence obtained as a result of authorization orders granted by Chief Justice Richard of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench - Shalala applied for a change of venue to the Province of Quebec - The trial judge denied the motion - There was no reason­able apprehension of bias and/or institu­tional bias - Judges were constantly called upon to rule on motions to exclude wiretap evidence and on the validity of the authori­zation under Part VI of the Criminal Code made by another judge of the same court - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal - See para­graph 111.

Courts - Topic 691

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Rea­son­able apprehension of bias - [See Courts - Topic 686 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4265

Procedure - Indictment - Form and con­tent - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3136 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4527

Procedure - Particulars - When obtainable and purpose of - The accused was charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to import a narcotic - The accused applied for par­ticulars of the offence alleged in the in­dictment - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's refusal to order particulars - The court stated that "[t]aking into account the particulars set out in the indictment, the evidence previ­ously given and the Crown disclosure, we are satisfied that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to order particulars." - See paragraphs 54 to 58.

Criminal Law - Topic 4616

Procedure - Trials - Venue - Change of - Grounds - [See Courts - Topic 686 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4722

Procedure - Information or indictment, charge or count - Indictable offences - Validity of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3136 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4731

Procedure - Information or indictment, charge or count - Indictable offences - Form and content - Date and description of offence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3136 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4860

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Question of law or question of law alone - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal referred to examples of what were and were not questions of law alone - See paragraphs 43 to 45.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.3

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Affidavit - Examination or cross-exam­ination of deponent - The accused was charged with conspiracy to import nar­cotics and with laundering proceeds of crime - The defence brought a motion to permit the accused to cross-examine a police corporal who was the affiant in an affidavit filed in support of a wiretap judicial authorization, the agents or law­yers who applied for the judicial authoriz­ations and a police staff sergeant who was a sub-affiant in support of two judicial authoriza­tions - The trial judge denied the motion relating to the police corporal and the six agents but allowed the motion to cross-examine the staff sergeant - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal - See paragraph 117.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.5

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Evidence in support - The New Bruns­wick Court of Appeal stated that in re­viewing whether an authorization should have issued the "reviewing judge must exercise his or her own judgment and rule whether, despite the deletions and exci­sions, there remains a sufficient basis to find that the impugned search warrant or authorization could reasonably have is­sued." - The court rejected the approach that the reviewing judge must give effect to an authorization where, after deletions and excisions, there remains "some" evi­dence upon which it could have been granted, "because it ac­cords deference to the issuing judge's exercise of discretion when the evidentiary basis upon which that discretion was exer­cised is no longer in the mix, a revised record, one that is less significant, having resulted from the dele­tions and excisions." - See paragraphs 90 to 93.

Criminal Law - Topic 5274.5

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Application for - Evidence in support - The accused was charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to import a narcotic - He challenged various wiretap authorizations, arguing that the supporting affidavits were insufficient and the authorizations were invalid - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed that the authorizations were valid - The evi­dence that remained after deletions made by the trial judge constituted sufficiently reliable evidence upon which the authori­zations could reasonably have been based - See paragraphs 81 to 94.

Criminal Law - Topic 5277

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Admissibility - General - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5283

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Authority for - Judicial review of - General - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5274.5 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5297

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility of private communications - Admissible interceptions - "Lawfully made" - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5298

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility of private communications - Admissible interceptions - Evidence and proof - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5301

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility of private communications - Notice of inten­tion to offer the communication as evi­dence - The accused was charged with conspiracy to import narcotics and with laundering proceeds of crime - The Crown sought to introduce certain one party con­sent interceptions of conversations between the accused and a police informant - On a voir dire, the accused challenged the ade­quacy of the Notice of Intention to Intro­duce Private Communications - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed that the notice was adequate - They met the notice and disclosure requirements of s. 189(5) of the Criminal Code, satisfied s. 30(7) of the Canada Evidence Act and met the disclosure requirements of R. v. Stinch­combe (S.C.C.) - See paragraphs 122 and 123.

Criminal Law - Topic 5310

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility of private communications - Practice - Ad­mission of admissible interceptions - Gen­eral - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5375

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Notice - Service - [See Crimi­nal Law - Topic 5301 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5857

Sentence - Conspiracy - Importing a nar­cotic - The 49 year old accused was con­victed of conspiracy to import cocaine - The accused, a lawyer and businessman, had no prior criminal record - Although no cocaine was actually imported, a co-con­spirator testified that the 40 cages intended to be used could hold six tons of cocaine valued at $190 million (with a much higher street value) - Three co-conspirators received sentences of five, four and three years respectively - How­ever, the accused was higher in the con­spiracy hierarchy and had been involved longer than the co-conspirators - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence of 18 years' imprisonment - See paragraph 126.

Criminal Law - Topic 5891

Sentence - Importing a narcotic - Con­spiracy - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5857 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Simon (S.J.), [1999] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

LeBlanc v. R. (1927), 49 C.C.C. 207 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Tourangeau v. R., [1959] B.R. 632 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Lavallée, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 626; 16 N.R. 445, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Wesley, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 35; 23 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Tanasichuk (D.D.) (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 443; 317 A.P.R. 443 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Leduc (1988), 92 N.B.R.(2d) 175; 236 A.P.R. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Bannister (1936), 66 C.C.C. 38 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Beattie v. R., [1967] S.C.R. 474, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Demeter, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 538; 16 N.R. 46, refd to. [para. 43].

Darville v. R. (1956), 116 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Mulvihill v. R. (1914), 49 S.C.R. 587, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Nolan (C.R.) (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 114; 317 A.P.R. 114 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

White v. R., [1947] S.C.R. 268, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Morrison (1982), 42 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 110 A.P.R. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Pleich (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 13 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Workman (1975), 19 C.C.C.(2d) 373 (Y.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Rasmussen (1934), 62 C.C.C. 217 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Doucette (1992), 110 N.S.R.(2d) 357; 299 A.P.R. 357 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Barrette, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 121; 10 N.R. 321; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 189; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 260, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Little and Wolski (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 531 (Man. C.A.), affd. [1976] 1 S.C.R. 201; 3 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Sanver, Suleyman (1973), 6 N.B.R.(2d) 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Olan, Hudson and Hartnett, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175; 21 N.R. 50; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

Shumiatcher v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General) (1962), 133 C.C.C. 69 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Lucas (1983), 57 N.S.R.(2d) 159; 120 A.P.R. 159; 6 C.C.C.(3d) 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Côté, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 8; 13 N.R. 271; 40 C.R.N.S. 308; [1977] 2 W.W.R. 174; 73 D.L.R.(3d) 752; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 353, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Alward (1977), 15 N.B.R.(2d) 551; 18 A.P.R. 551; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 416 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Bond, [1906] 2 K.B. 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Birmingham Overseers (1861), 1 B. & S. 763, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Finlay and Grellette (1985), 11 O.A.C. 279; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 48 (C.A.), consd. [para. 68].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 90; 17 C.R.(4th) 74, adden­dum 147 N.R. 335, dist. [para. 71].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. LeBeau; R. v. Lofthouse (1988), 25 O.A.C. 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 163 (C.A.), affd. (1989), 104 N.R. 79; 37 O.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 86 C.C.C.(3d) 32 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

Blackman v. Review Board (B.C.) et al. (1993), 82 C.C.C.(3d) 5 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1995), 54 B.C.A.C. 170; 88 W.A.C. 170; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 412 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

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; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 482, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Allain (S.) (1998), 205 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 523 A.P.R. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

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, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres (1994), 60 Q.A.C. 113; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (Que. C.A.), not folld. [para. 91].

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, refd to. [para. 92].

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, refd to. [para. 96].

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

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

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. 97].

R. v. Kelly (R.W.) (1999), 213 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 545 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Valley Equipment Ltd. v. R. (1998), 198 N.B.R.(2d) 211; 506 A.P.R. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Mezzo, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802; 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 107].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 29 C.R.(4th) 113, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291; 197 N.R. 321; 144 Sask.R. 81; 124 W.A.C. 81; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 108].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­dation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 113].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Qué­bec (Procureur général) et autres.

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Cotroni; R. v. Papalia, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 256; 26 N.R. 133; 93 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Douglas and Douris, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 301; 122 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 1; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 29, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 595, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Vu - see R. v. La (H.K.) et al.

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 185(1), sect. 186(1), sect. 186(1.1), sect. 186(2), sect. 186(3), sect. 186(4) [para. 39]; sect. 186(4)(d) [para. 71]; sect. 186(5.1) [para. 39]; sect. 189(1), sect. 189(2), sect. 189(3), sect. 189(4) [paras. 39, 66]; sect. 189(5) [paras. 39, 122]; sect. 581, sect. 587 [para. 39]; sect. 587(2) [para. 55].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7, sect. 8 [para. 39]; sect. 11(a) [para. 49]; sect. 24(2) [para. 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (6th Ed. 1985), pp. 49 [para. 59]; 59 [para. 63].

Daniels, Jonathan, Valid Despite Vague­ness: The Relationship Between Vague­ness and Shifting Objective (1994), 58 Sask. L.Rev. 101, generally [para. 73].

Watt, David, The Law of Electronic Sur­veillance in Canada (1979), p. 129 [para. 79].

Counsel:

Morris Manning, Q.C., and Theresa R. Simone, for the appellant;

G. Scott Ellsworth and Stephen P. Leavitt, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 6 to 9, 12 and 13, 1999, before Ayles, Ryan and Drapeau, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the court was delivered on January 27, 2000.