Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/R._v._Wong> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 31 of
31
with 100 items per page.
- R._v._Wong abstract "R. v. Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance. Electronic surveillance without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the police acted in good faith and had reasonable and probable ground to believe criminal activities were committed. The surveillance without authorization was a result of misunderstanding. Hence, acceptance of the surveillance as evidences will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.".
- R._v._Wong wikiPageExternalLink right.aspx.
- R._v._Wong wikiPageExternalLink Boa_privacy_2005.pdf.
- R._v._Wong wikiPageID "4662735".
- R._v._Wong wikiPageRevisionID "516568583".
- R._v._Wong caseName "R. v. Wong".
- R._v._Wong citations "[1990] 3 SCR 36, 1990 CanLII 56, 60 CCC 460, 1 CR 1, 2 CRR 277, 45 OAC 250".
- R._v._Wong concurrence "Lamer C.J.".
- R._v._Wong decidedDate "1990-11-22".
- R._v._Wong dissent "Wilson J.".
- R._v._Wong docket "20549".
- R._v._Wong fullCaseName "Santiago Wong v. Her Majesty The Queen".
- R._v._Wong hasPhotoCollection R._v._Wong.
- R._v._Wong heardDate "1990-05-02".
- R._v._Wong history "The trial judge acquitted the appellant and ruled video surveillance as inadmissible. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal against acquittal and ordered a new trial.".
- R._v._Wong joinconcurrence "McLachlin J.".
- R._v._Wong joinmajority "Dickson C.J., L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka JJ.".
- R._v._Wong majority "La Forest J.".
- R._v._Wong notparticipating "Gonthier and Cory JJ.".
- R._v._Wong ratio "The appeal should be dismissed because admission into evidence of the videotape would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.".
- R._v._Wong scc "1989".
- R._v._Wong subject Category:1990_in_Canadian_case_law.
- R._v._Wong subject Category:Section_Eight_Charter_case_law.
- R._v._Wong subject Category:Supreme_Court_of_Canada_cases.
- R._v._Wong comment "R. v. Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance.".
- R._v._Wong label "R. v. Wong".
- R._v._Wong sameAs m.0cg10_.
- R._v._Wong sameAs Q17053531.
- R._v._Wong sameAs Q17053531.
- R._v._Wong wasDerivedFrom R._v._Wong?oldid=516568583.
- R._v._Wong isPrimaryTopicOf R._v._Wong.