on this last point, the crown filed an application for leave to appeal, requesting that the scc do a deeper dive. that application was dismissed on aug. 8.
according to the crown’s application, in 1988 the scc ruled that an accused person’s rights had to be breached before evidence was gathered in order for the evidence to be deemed inadmissible. the crown’s application notes that in 2016, the ontario court of appeal ruled that in some circumstances evidence could be excluded even if the breach happened after the evidence was gathered.
in fox’s case, the crown’s application noted, “the charter violation occurred after the portion of the intercepted communication that formed part of the crown’s case,” and the saskatchewan court of appeal relied on the aforementioned ruling from the ontario court in rendering its decision.
the crown argued that in light of the facts in the fox case, the saskatchewan court of appeal “erred in finding that the impugned evidence was tainted by a charter violation that had not yet occurred.”
the crown argued its application “presents a question of indisputable public importance,” and stressed a need for the scc to offer clarity on the issue by weighing in on the ontario case, so as to “have the final word on the matter.”