Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation explores a case involving wiretap authorizations and the limits of police surveillance powers. The police obtained a wiretap based solely on information from a confidential informant. The accused argued that this wasn’t enough—that the person targeted wasn’t truly “known” to police, as required by the Criminal Code. The courts disagreed. And the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, leaving unresolved serious questions about privacy and police overreach.
Key Points Discussed
During their investigation, police received a tip from a confidential informant implicating a specific person in criminal activity. Based on this uncorroborated information, they obtained a wiretap authorization. At trial, the defence argued the wiretap was unlawful because the person named was not “known” to police in a legally sufficient way. The argument was that a single tip—without corroboration—does not meet the legal standard required to authorize such invasive surveillance.
Despite these concerns, the wiretap was upheld. The court found the informant’s tip sufficient, effectively lowering the bar for what police need to know before listening in on private conversations.
Why This Case Matters
Wiretap authorizations allow the state to intercept private communications—one of the most intrusive tools available to law enforcement. If the threshold for identifying targets is based solely on uncorroborated tips, it creates a dangerous precedent. People could have their privacy violated without ever being charged, and without any recourse.
Missed Opportunity for a National Standard
The Supreme Court could have clarified what it means for someone to be “known” to police under the wiretap provisions of the Criminal Code. Such guidance would ensure:
– A clear standard for how police must identify targets before applying for a wiretap
– Stronger protections against unjustified surveillance
– Consistent national rules on the use of confidential informants in authorization applications
– Reduced risk of Charter violations and improper evidence gathering
Need for Clarity and Accountability
Without Supreme Court intervention, lower courts are left to interpret “known to police” on a case-by-case basis. This can lead to inconsistent outcomes and diluted privacy protections—especially troubling in an era of increasingly advanced surveillance technologies.
Topics Covered
– Wiretap authorizations under the Criminal Code
– Use of confidential informants
– Section 8 Charter protections against unreasonable search and seizure
– Police surveillance powers and judicial oversight
– The risks of unreviewed state surveillance
