Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

 

                                                 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

 

Citation: R. v. Caissey, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 451, 2008 SCC 65

 

Date :  20081120

Docket :  32436

 

Between:

Lee Michael Caissey

Appellant

and

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

- and -

Attorney General of Ontario

Intervener

 

Coram : McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

 

 

Reasons for Judgment:

(paras. 1 to 3)

 

 

 

McLachlin C.J. (Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring)

______________________________


R. v. Caissey, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 451, 2008 SCC 65

 

Lee Michael Caissey                                                                                                         Appellant

 

v.

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                                                 Respondent

 

and

 

Attorney General of Ontario                                                                                            Intervener

 

Indexed as:  R. v. Caissey

 

Neutral citation:  2008 SCC 65.

 

File No.:  32436.

 

2008:  November 20.

 

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta


Criminal law — Search warrant — Validity — Reliability of first‑time informant — Information about criminal particulars uncorroborated — Reliability of informant’s information sufficient in context of other factors to justify issuance of search warrant.

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (McFadyen, Picard and Martin JJ.A.), [2008] 4 W.W.R. 100, 84 Alta. L.R. (4th) 226, 422 A.R. 208, 415 W.A.C. 208, 227 C.C.C. (3d) 322, [2007] A.J. No. 1342 (QL), 2007 CarswellAlta 1640, 2007 ABCA 380, affirming the accused’s conviction for possession of marihuana.  Appeal dismissed.

 

Daryl J. Royer and Akram Attia, for the appellant.

 

Ronald C. Reimer and Greg Rice, for the respondent.

 

Michael Bernstein, for the intervener.

 

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

[1]                              The Chief Justice — This is an appeal as of right on a question of law.

 

[2]                              The dissenting judge advanced the view that only corroboration of some criminal particular of the offence offered the necessary assurance for the issuance of the warrant.  This is the question of law that brings the appeal before us.  On this issue, we agree with the test adopted by the majority.


 

[3]     Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.


Judgment accordingly.

 

Solicitors for the appellant:  Attia Reeves Tensfeldt Snow, Edmonton.

 

Solicitor for the respondent:  Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Edmonton.

 

Solicitor for the intervener:  Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.