Edit
What follows are ... reasons for decision on ... an application to exclude the interceptions the Crown intends to proffer at trial.
. . . . .
The respondent argues that the redacted [information to obtain (“ITO”)] and the judicial summary (consisting, as earlier noted, of the edited ITO) taken together, constitute a sufficient basis upon which the authorization could have issued, such that the application should be dismissed.
. . . . .
The verb “edit” is defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary 10th Ed., (Oxford, 1999, Oxford University Press), as “prepare (written material) for publication by correcting, condensing, or otherwise modifying it” (emphasis added). In other words, although, in the context of disclosure in criminal matters, “edit” is frequently equated with the verb “redact”, the two verbs are not necessarily co-extensive. Against that backdrop, in attempting to follow the [R. v. Garofoli (1990), 1990 CarswellOnt 119 (S.C.C.)] procedure ... initially at least, that, as well as referring to that which remains in the redacted ITO, Sopinka J.'s use, in Step 5, of the phrase, “the material as edited”, also envisions a substantive consideration by the reviewing justice of the contents of the judicial summary.
R. v. Arviko |
2013 CarswellOnt 11629 (Ont. S.C.J.)
at para. 2, 69, 71 |
Clark J.