Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights – Criminal law – Search and seizure – General warrants – Video surveillance – Solicitor-client privilege – Where a judge lacks jurisdiction to issue a warrant, must a reviewing court rely only on s. 24(2) of the Charter when considering a remedy? – If so, whether the evidence should have been excluded having regard to the jurisdictional error and the police seizure and review of privileged communications – Whether police should be required to comply with the minimum requirements of Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 209, when seizing solicitor-client communications in a residence as opposed to a law office – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 487.01.

The applicant, Mr. Li, was convicted of production, conspiracy to produce and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He and three other individuals grew thousands of marijuana plants on large parcels of land located in rural areas of eastern and northeastern Ontario. Mr. Li was the owner of one of the properties and was linked by surveillance to another. During the course of their investigation the police obtained general warrants and search warrants from provincial court judges. The general warrants issued under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code authorized the use of video surveillance as an investigative procedure. During the execution of one of the search warrants at a residence, the police seized and reviewed a number of real estate documents. At trial, Mr. Li challenged the general warrants, arguing that a provincial court judge does not have the jurisdiction to issue general warrants authorizing video surveillance. He also challenged the seizure of the real estate documents, arguing that they were protected by solicitor-client privilege. The trial judge agreed that the provincial court judge did not have the authority to issue the general warrants allowing video surveillance and he thus found them to be unlawful. However, despite the violation of Mr. Li’s s. 8 Charter rights, an analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter led him to admit the evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.