R v Doroslovac

R. v. Doroslovac

2012 ONCA 680
Court of Appeal for Ontario — Winkler C.J.O., Laskin and Watt JJ.A. | October 10, 2012

Background

In May 2008, police were investigating Slavko Ilic and Milenko Doroslovac for drug trafficking. A Superior Court judge authorized police to intercept Ilic's telephone calls and other telecommunications. Police found a torn-up piece of paper in a movie theatre garbage can that contained the phone number (226) 220-6845 and instructions for operating the phone. They began intercepting communications on that number.

From intercepted text messages, police concluded that Ilic and Doroslovac were planning to meet at a commuter parking lot near Highways 6 and 401 to exchange drugs for money. Undercover officers watched the exchange, followed Doroslovac to Toronto, and saw him hand over a white plastic bag containing 3 kilograms of cocaine to another man at a coffee shop. Arrests followed.

At trial, the judge excluded the intercepted text messages as evidence and acquitted Doroslovac. The Crown appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Issues

1. Did the trial judge correctly interpret the wiretap authorization regarding text message interception?
2. Were the intercepted text messages properly excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter?

The Wiretap Authorization Problem

The trial judge ruled that the text messages couldn't be used as evidence because police hadn't properly followed their wiretap authorization. The authorization allowed interception of communications from devices "believed on reasonable grounds to be used by [Ilic] and while being used by one of the persons named." The judge interpreted this to mean police needed certainty that Ilic was actually the person sending each text message at the time it was sent.

The Court of Appeal disagreed completely. Justice Watt explained that this interpretation made text message interception practically impossible — there's no "live" voice to monitor in a text message, and visual surveillance can't determine who's typing unless you're standing right next to them. The court found that paragraph 6e of the authorization specifically allowed interception of "non-oral telecommunications" (like text messages) without live monitoring or visual surveillance requirements.

The proper interpretation was that police only needed reasonable grounds to believe Ilic was using the phone generally, and that at the time of interception, either Ilic or another authorized person was using the device — not certainty about who was typing each specific message.

Key Takeaway

Courts will interpret wiretap authorizations to make them workable, not to create impossible standards that would defeat their purpose.

While this case deals with wiretap evidence rather than typical Provincial Offences Act matters, it shows how courts approach the interpretation of legal authorizations — they look at the document as a whole and reject interpretations that would make authorized activities practically impossible to carry out.