R. v. Wong (P.K.) et al., 1999 ABPC 115

• Judge: P.C.C. Marshall, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 19, 1999
• Citations: 1999 ABPC 115;(1999), 256 A.R. 61 (ProvCt)

R. v. Wong (P.K.) (1999), 256 A.R. 61 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. DE.122

Her Majesty the Queen v. Perry Kit Wong and Mahmood Mohebiany

(80618291P10101-104, 201-204; 1999 ABPC 115)

Indexed As: R. v. Wong (P.K.) et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

P.C.C. Marshall, P.C.J.

November 19, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was charged with defrauding Alberta Blue Cross of money after numerous bank statements, cancelled cheques and related documents were seized from two Edmonton banks. The accused asserted that because the search warrants under which evidence was seized were invalid, his s. 8 Charter rights were violated. Consequently, all of the evidence obtained should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the evidence seized from one bank (the Bank of Montreal) was not admissible. However, the evidence seized from the Royal Bank was admissible.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - The accused was charged with fraud after the police obtained numerous bank statements, cancelled cheques and related documents from two Edmonton banks - Crown counsel conceded that the warrants used in conducting the searches were invalid and breached the accused's s. 8 Charter rights - However, counsel argued that because the violation was committed in good faith (i.e., the officer believed that the warrants were valid), and the evidence seized was non-conscripted real evidence, it should be admissible - The accused asserted that the breach of his privacy interests was so great that all of the evi­dence should be excluded (s. 24(2)) - The Alberta Provincial Court reviewed the warrants and held that only the evidence obtained from the Bank of Montreal should be excluded as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 1 to 106.

Civil Rights - Topic 1524

Property - Personal property - Search and seizure by police - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1508 and Criminal Law - Topic 3097 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3052

Special powers - Search warrants - Effect of defects - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3097 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3097

Special powers - Issue of search warrants -Contents of information or application for issue of - The accused was charged with fraud after the police obtained numerous bank statements, cancelled cheques and related documents from two Edmonton banks - Crown counsel conceded that the warrants used in conducting the searches were invalid and breached the accused's s. 8 Charter rights - However, counsel argued that because the violation was committed in good faith (i.e., the officer believed that the warrants were valid), and the evidence seized was non-conscripted real evidence, it should be admissible - The Alberta Provincial Court excluded the evidence obtained from one bank only - Although both "informations to obtain" were poorly drafted, the warrant for the Bank of Montreal lacked particulars regarding the status of one of the informants which, if disclosed, would not have been issued - It would bring the administration of justice into disrepute to admit this evidence - See paragraphs 70 to 106.

Criminal Law - Topic 3152

Special powers - Power of search - Warrantless searches - The Alberta Pro­vincial Court reviewed the test for a warrantless search - See paragraphs 1 to 5.

Evidence - Topic 7534

Competency of evidence - Illegally obtained evidence - Exclusion of - Disre­pute of administration of justice - [See C ivil Rights - Topic 1508 ].

Cases Noticed:

Le Comte v. British Columbia, [1990] B.C.J. No. 870 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

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, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Baker (H.D.), [1997] 7 W.W.R. 713, 155 Sask.R. 295 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

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

R. v. Warawa (A.J.) (1997), 208 A.R. 81; 56 Alta. L.R.(3d) 67 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Neubauer (1989), 75 Sask.R. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. W.S. (1992), 129 A.R. 365 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 98].

Counsel:

W.G. Pinckney, for the Crown;

R.J.A. Gregory, for hte accused, Wong;

S. Tarrabain, for the accused, Mohebiany.

This action was heard before P.C.C. Marshall, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on November 19, 1999.