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

                                                 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

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.

______________________________

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.