R. v. Wong,

JurisdictionBritish Columbia
JudgeThe Honourable Mr. Justice Kent
Citation2017 BCSC 306
Date24 February 2017
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
Docket Number26748-3

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
9 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 27 ' May 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 12, 2020
    ...Grant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223, R. v. Waterfield [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, R. v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50, R. v. Wong, 2017 BCSC 306, R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19, R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, ......
  • R. v. Drynock,
    • Canada
    • July 2, 2019
    ...to assess the existence of the statutory preconditions. [117] A summary of the general principles is set out in R. v. Wong, 2017 BCSC 306 [Wong] at paras. 49- 74, where Kent J. quoted extensively from the comprehensive summary of the general principles found in R. v. Boussoulas, 2014 ONSC 5......
  • R. v. Wawrykiewycz,
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
    • March 21, 2018
    ...name="_ftn29" title="" id="_ftn29">[29] Tessling, at para. 42. [30] 2017 BCSC 306. [31] R. v. Mackenzie, 2013 SCC 50, [2013] S.C.R. 250, at para. 31; R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 SCR 341, at para. 39. R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24, [2010] 1 SCR 851, at para. [32]m:.0001pt;text-indent:0cm">[80] There......
  • R. v. Edwardson,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • December 7, 2018
    ...surveillance resulted in a s. 8 Charter breach was dismissed for reasons set out at paras. 52‑54: [52] The defence relies on R. v. Wong, 2017 BCSC 306, in which the court found that a camera focussed on the back yard of the accuseds’ residence and which was recording 24 hours a day, 7 days ......
  • Get Started for Free
8 cases
  • R. v. Drynock
    • Canada
    • July 2, 2019
    ...to assess the existence of the statutory preconditions. [117] A summary of the general principles is set out in R. v. Wong, 2017 BCSC 306 [Wong] at paras. 49- 74, where Kent J. quoted extensively from the comprehensive summary of the general principles found in R. v. Boussoulas, 2014 ONSC 5......
  • R. v. Wawrykiewycz
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
    • March 21, 2018
    ...name="_ftn29" title="" id="_ftn29">[29] Tessling, at para. 42. [30] 2017 BCSC 306. [31] R. v. Mackenzie, 2013 SCC 50, [2013] S.C.R. 250, at para. 31; R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 SCR 341, at para. 39. R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24, [2010] 1 SCR 851, at para. [32]m:.0001pt;text-indent:0cm">[80] There......
  • R. v. Edwardson
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • December 7, 2018
    ...surveillance resulted in a s. 8 Charter breach was dismissed for reasons set out at paras. 52‑54: [52] The defence relies on R. v. Wong, 2017 BCSC 306, in which the court found that a camera focussed on the back yard of the accuseds’ residence and which was recording 24 hours a day, 7 days ......
  • R. v. Edwardsen
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • July 16, 2019
    ...that the police failed to obtain a judicial authorization to use such ongoing video surveillance. [52] The defence relies on R. v. Wong, 2017 BCSC 306, in which the court found that a camera focussed on the back yard of the accuseds’ residence and which was recording 24 hours a day, 7 days ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 27 ' May 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 12, 2020
    ...Grant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223, R. v. Waterfield [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, R. v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50, R. v. Wong, 2017 BCSC 306, R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19, R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, ......