JCT: Judge Lynn Landry, Genevieve DePassille for the Crown,
Jacques Belley for the defence.

You'll remember how the last time, Dominic Gravel had
his motion to quash, returnable with 30 days notice to the
Crown, delayed on the grounds that the judge wrongly ruled
that his motion, which claimed no Charter right, was a
constitutional one that had to be made at his trial.

This is the fourth judge to not know the difference between
a Charter motion and a Section 601 motion to quash.

I had prepared him two more motions, his Superior Court re-
application to vary bail conditions every 30 days and his
motion to quash which was improperly delayed by Judge
Turpin. But Dominic was so puked out that he decided to wait
to see what happened at his May 6 pre-trial before filing.

Jacques Belley was his lawyer and he argued that the wire-
tap evidence was inadmissible because the cops were late in
giving Dominic notification within 90 days. They sent it to
his home but he was in jail so it was returned and they only
got it to him after the 90 days had expired.

They got their warrant on June 28th, good 60 days til Aug.
28th. Then they had to notify him in writing within 90 days
by Nov 28th. He only got served in jail on January 24.
Besides, they mentioned the 400 wire-taps in his bail
hearing in late July.

Unfortunately, it seems like a useless red herring. In the
Criminal Code:

Written notification to be given
196. (1) The Attorney General of the province in which an
application under subsection 185(1) was made or the
Solicitor General of Canada if the application was made by
or on behalf of the Solicitor General of Canada shall,
within ninety days after the period for which the
authorization was given or renewed or within such other
period as is fixed pursuant to subsection 185(3) or
subsection (3) of this section, notify in writing the person
who was the object of the interception pursuant to the
authorization and shall, in a manner prescribed by
regulations made by the Governor in Council, certify to the
court that gave the authorization that the person has been
so notified.

Extension of period for notification
(2) The running of the ninety days referred to in subsection
(1), or of any other period fixed pursuant to subsection
185(3) or subsection (3) of this section, is suspended until
any application made by the Attorney General or the
Solicitor General to a judge of a superior court of criminal
jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 for an
extension or a subsequent extension of the period for which
the authorization was given or renewed has been heard and
disposed of.

Where extension to be granted
(3) Where the judge to whom an application referred to in
subsection (2) is made, on the basis of an affidavit
submitted in support of the application, is satisfied that
(a) the investigation of the offence to which the
authorization relates, or (b) a subsequent investigation of
an offence listed in section 183 commenced as a result of
information obtained from the investigation referred to in
paragraph (a), is continuing and is of the opinion that the
interests of justice warrant the granting of the
application, the judge shall grant an extension, or a
subsequent extension, of the period, each extension not to
exceed three years.

JCT: There's plenty about how they can ask for more time but
there's nothing about being late. Except in the case law
cited in the Code. I'm using the 1993 Martin's Criminal Code
so there might be new case law but it's doubtful. In the
Annotations:

"Failure to comply with this section does not affect the
admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of an
interception made pursuant to the authorization.
R. v Welsh and Iannuzzi (No 6)(1977) 32CCC(2d)363(Ont.C.A.)"

JCT: So the argument that the evidence obtained by the 400
wire-taps is in admissible seems a loser since 1977 and I
doubt they've changed it since.

Also:

"Subsection (1) is complied with merely by notifying the
person that he was the object of an interception. The person
has no right to any wider notification.
Re Zaduk and The Queen (1979) 46CCC(2d)327(Ont.C.A.)"

JCT: So it seems pretty clear that Belley's challenge is a
waste of time. But the judge put off the challenge to June
28 so Dominic's going to file his 2 motions and there'll be
more Quebec court action real soon.


--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics