R. v. Wilson, (1983) 51 N.R. 321 (SCC)

JudgeLaskin, C.J.C., Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateDecember 15, 1983
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1983), 51 N.R. 321 (SCC);[1983] ACS no 88;[1983] SCJ No 88 (QL);[1984] 1 WWR 481;11 WCB 200;51 NR 321;37 CR (3d) 97;1983 CanLII 35 (SCC);JE 84-70;[1983] 2 SCR 594;9 CCC (3d) 97;4 DLR (4th) 577;26 Man R (2d) 194

R. v. Wilson (1983), 51 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

R. v. Wilson

Indexed As: R. v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.

December 15, 1983.

Summary:

The accused was charged with nine counts of engaging in the business of betting or recording bets, keeping a common betting house and related offences. The Crown relied upon evidence obtained by wiretap authorized by the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. At trial the trial judge ruled that the wiretaps were unlawful, because the conditions for the issuance of an authorization under s. 178.13(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada were not met. As a result, the accused was acquitted. The Crown appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 13 Man.R.(2d) 155 allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the ground that the trial judge erred in going behind the authorization, which he was bound to accept. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed that it was not open to the trial judge to question the validity of the authorization. See paragraphs 1 to 19.

Dickson, J., concurred in the result, but was of the opinion that it was open to the trial judge to go behind the authorization. Dickson, J., stated that the trial judge erred in deciding that the conditions for the authorization had not been met without examining the contents of the sealed packet. See paragraphs 20 to 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 5283

Evidence and witnesses - Interception of private communications - Authority for - Judicial review of - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an application for review of an authorization must be made to the court that made it, because there was no right of appeal and prerogative relief by certiorari was inapplicable in the absence of a question of jurisdiction - See paragraph 15.

Criminal Law - Topic 5310.1

Evidence and witnesses - Inadmissible private communications - Admission of admissible interceptions - Authorization - Effect of - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, where the Crown tendered evidence obtained by an authorized interception, the trial judge must accept the authorization and may not go behind it - See paragraphs 1 to 19.

Practice - Topic 5461

Judgments and orders - Finality of - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a court order stands unless set aside and may not be attacked in collateral proceedings - For example, the court held that a wiretap authorization must be accepted by the trial judge at a trial, where authorized wiretap evidence is offered - See paragraphs 4 to 14, 19.

Practice - Topic 5807

Judgments and orders - Ex parte orders - Judicial review - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an ex parte order may be reviewed by the judge who made it or another judge of the same court - See paragraphs 15 to 16.

Practice - Topic 6258

Judgments and orders - Setting aside orders - In collateral action - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a court order, which has not been set aside, may not be attacked in a collateral proceeding - See paragraphs 4 to 14, 19.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Transport (U.K.) Ltd. v. Alsbury et al., [1953] 1 D.L.R. 385, affd. [1953] S.C.R. 516, appld. [para. 5].

Poje et al. v. Attorney General of British Columbia, [1953] S.C.R. 516, affing [1953] 1 D.L.R. 385, appld. [para. 6].

Pashko v. Canadian Acceptance Corporation Ltd. (1957), 12 D.L.R.(2d) 380, refd to. [para. 6].

Gibson v. Le Temps Publishing Co. (1903), 6 O.L.R. 690, appld. [para. 7].

Clarke et al. v. Phinney (1895), 25 S.C.R. 633, appld. [para. 8].

Maynard v. Maynard, [1951] S.C.R. 346, appld. [para. 8].

Bador Bee v. Habib Merican Noordin et al., [1909] A.C. 615, appld. [para. 8].

Royal Trust Company v. Jones et al., [1962] S.C.R. 132, appld. [para. 8].

R. v. Welsh and Iannuzzi (No. 6) (1977), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 363 (Ont. C.A.), appld. [paras. 10, 51].

R. v. Wong (No. 1) (1976), 33 C.C.C.(2d) 506, consd. [paras. 10, 18, 34].

R. v. Charette, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 785; 33 N.R. 158, affing sub nom. R. v. Parsons, 37 C.C.C.(2d) 497, consd. [paras. 14, 31].

R. v. Parsons (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 497, affd. sub nom. R. v. Charette, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 785; 33 N.R. 158, consd. [para. 14, 31].

Dickie v. Woodworth (1883), 8 S.C.R. 192, appld. [para. 15].

Stewart v. Braun, [1924] 3 D.L.R. 941 (Man. K.B.), appld. [para. 15].

Stewart and The Queen, Re (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 306 (Ont. C.C.), app. for cert. dismissed 30 C.C.C.(2d) 391 (O.H.C.), consd. [paras. 15, 34].

Turangan and Chui and The Queen, Re (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 249 (B.C.S.C.), appeal dismissed for lack of juris. 32 C.C.C.(2d) 254 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 15].

Bidder v. Bridges (1884), 26 Ch.D. 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

Boyle v. Sacker (1888), 39 Ch.D. 249 (C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

Gulf Islands Navigation Ltd. v. Seafarers' International Union (1959), 18 D.L.R.(2d) 625 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Dass (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 194 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Gill (1980), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 169 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 34].

R. v. Ho et al. (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 339 (B.C.C.C.), consd. [para. 34].

Donnelly and Acheson and The Queen (1976), 29 C.C.C.(2d) 58 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 35].

Miller and Thomas and The Queen, Re (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 257 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 35].

R. v. Goldman, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 976; 30 N.R. 453, consd. [para. 35].

Miller and Thomas (No. 4), Re (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 128 (B.C.C.C.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Newall et al. (No. 1), Re (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 431 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Johnny and Billy (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 33 (B.C.S.C.) consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Bradley et al. (1980), 19 C.R. (3d) 336 (Que. S.C.), consd. [para. 39].

Royal Commission Inquiry into Royal American Shows (No. 3), Re (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 212 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 39].

Zaduk and The Queen, Re (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Haslam (1977), 12 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 29; 25 A.P.R. 29; 36 C.C.C.(2d) 250 (Nfld. D.C.), consd. [para. 39].

R. and Kozak, Re (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 235 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Kalo, Kalo and Vonschrober (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (Ont. C.C.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Blacquiere et al. (1980), 57 C.C.C.(2d) 330 (P.E.I.S.C.), consd. [para. 43].

R. and Collos et al., Re (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 405 (B.C.C.A.), reversing on other grounds 34 C.C.C.(2d) 313 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 43].

R. v. Robinson et al. (1977), 39 C.R.N.S. 158 (B.C.C.C.), consd. [para. 43].

R. v. Hollyoake et al. (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 63 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 43].

R. v. Crease et al. (No. 2) (1980), 53 C.C.C.(2d) 378 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 51].

R. v. Cardoza (1981), 61 C.C.C.(2d) 412 (Ont. C.C.), consd. [para. 51].

R. v. Gabourie (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 471 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 51].

R. v. Hancock and Proulx (1976), 30 C.C.C.(2d) 544 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 178.12, sect. 178.13, sect. 178.14, sect. 178.16.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bellemare, La revision d'une autorization en ecoute electronique (1979), 39 R. du B. 496 [para. 34].

Cohen, Stanley A., Invasion of Privacy: Police and Electronic Surveillance in Canada (1983) [para. 35].

Manning, Protection of Privacy Act (1974), pp. 135-137 [para. 34].

Counsel:

Robert L. Pollack, for the appellant;

John D. Montgomery, Q.C., for the respondent.

This case was heard on March 14, 1983, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Laskin, C.J.C., Dickson, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 15, 1983, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

McIntyre, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 19;

Dickson, J. - see paragraphs 20 to 57.

Laskin, C.J.C., and Estey, J., concurred with McIntyre, J.

Chouinard, J., concurred with Dickson, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
586 practice notes
  • TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 23, 2010
    ...Port Louis ltée v. Lafontaine (Village), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326; 121 N.R. 323; 38 Q.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 56]. R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 60]. Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128; 2004 SCC 2......
  • Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 294 B.C.A.C. 70 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • October 12, 2010
    ...other than those whose specific object is the reversal, variation, or nullification of the order or judgment': Wilson v. The Queen , [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594 at p. 599; R. v. Litchfield , [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333 at p. 349. "[50] All of the constitutional arguments Ms. Kiselbach now seeks to raise co......
  • Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., (2003) 179 O.A.C. 291 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 6, 2003
    ...Lemay v. R., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Banks, [1916] 2 K.B. 621 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, consd. [para. 33]. R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para......
  • R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 23, 2006
    ...191; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 116; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 13 C.H.R.R. D/435; 1990 CarswellNat 1030, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 63]. R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 37 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 1 W.W.R. 481; 4 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 1983 CarswellMan 189, refd to. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
566 cases
  • TeleZone Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 410 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 23, 2010
    ...Port Louis ltée v. Lafontaine (Village), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326; 121 N.R. 323; 38 Q.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 56]. R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 60]. Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128; 2004 SCC 2......
  • Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 294 B.C.A.C. 70 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • October 12, 2010
    ...other than those whose specific object is the reversal, variation, or nullification of the order or judgment': Wilson v. The Queen , [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594 at p. 599; R. v. Litchfield , [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333 at p. 349. "[50] All of the constitutional arguments Ms. Kiselbach now seeks to raise co......
  • Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., (2003) 179 O.A.C. 291 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 6, 2003
    ...Lemay v. R., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Banks, [1916] 2 K.B. 621 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, consd. [para. 33]. R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para......
  • R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • June 23, 2006
    ...191; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 116; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 13 C.H.R.R. D/435; 1990 CarswellNat 1030, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 63]. R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 37 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 1 W.W.R. 481; 4 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 1983 CarswellMan 189, refd to. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 11 ' 14, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 19, 2022
    ...of Process, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 2.1.01, Salasel v. Cuthbertson, 2015 ONCA 115, 124 O.R. (3d) 401, Wilson v. The Queen, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594 CIVIL DECISIONS Marmer Penner Inc. v. Vacaru, 2022 ONCA 280 [Doherty, Huscroft and Harvison Young JJ.A.] Counsel: F. V., self-represented as ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 7 ' December 11, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • December 21, 2020
    ...Code Act, ss. 1, ss. 8(1), ss. 12(2), ss. 25, ss. 36(1), R v Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd., [1998] 1 SCR 706, Wilson v The Queen, [1983] 2 SCR 594, R v Bird, 2019 SCC 7, Garland v Consumers' Gas Co., 2004 SCC 25, Amtim Capital Inc. v Appliance Recycling Centers of America, 2014 ONCA 62, R......
  • Consent Order Not Rectification
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • February 27, 2015
    ...but was not binding on him. Robertson J. for the majority rejected the minister's position and cited the SCC decision in Wilson ([1983] 2 SCR 594) and The first principle is that the record of a superior court is to be treated as "absolute verity so long as it stands unreversed"...Second, a......
17 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Guide to the Law and Practice of Anti-SLAPP Proceedings Part IX. Procedural Issues in Anti-SLAPP Motions
    • June 13, 2022
    ...2020 BCCA 118 ......................................................................................................91 R v Wilson, [1983] 2 SCR 594 .....................................................................................................91 Raymond v Brauer, 2014 NSSC 168 .............
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Understanding Section 8: Search, Seizure, and the Canadian Constitution
    • June 17, 2005
    ...70 C.C.C. (3d) 529 (C.A.) ............................................149, 221, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231– 32 R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594, 4 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 9 C.C.C. (3d) 97 .................. 90 R. v. Wilson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1291, 56 C.C.C. (3d) 142 ..............................
  • Judicial Screening
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Guide to the Law and Practice of Anti-SLAPP Proceedings Part II. The Legislation and Its Objectives
    • June 13, 2022
    ...A dismissal application is entirely diferent . Criminal Law Wiretap Authorization • R v Durette , [1994] 1 SCR 469 • R v Wilson , [1983] 2 SCR 594 Parole Eligibility • R v Soomel , 2020 BCCA 118 • R v Simmonds , 2018 BCCA 205 • R v Dell , 2018 ONCA 674 Section 508: Appearances on a Promise ......
  • Determining Reasonableness: The Collins Test and Hunter v. Southam
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Understanding Section 8: Search, Seizure, and the Canadian Constitution
    • June 17, 2005
    ...compliance with the preconditions for issuing an authorization for a wiretap interception; previously, by virtue of R. v. Wilson (1983), 9 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.), reviewing courts were precluded from assessing the authorizing judge’s decision that the statutory preconditions for a wiretap ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT