36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization.

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.

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.

Police installed a video camera without prior judicial authorization and monitored the activities in a hotel room registered to the appellant in the course of an investigation of a "floating" gaming house.

and L'Heureux‑Dubé and Sopinka JJ, Justice La Forest held that the degree of privacy reasonably expected in a free society would be seriously diminished by unrestricted video surveillance by agents of the state.

Writing for himself and McLachlin J: Chief Justice Lamer held not every unauthorized electronic surveillance carried out by the agents of the state violates s. 8 of the Charter .

′"R. v. Duarte" stands for the proposition that the recording of a private communication, without the consent of all parties thereto, constitutes a search for the purpose of s. 8 .

Mr. Wong had no reasonable expectation of privacy as he had invited the public into the hotel room and, accordingly, no search took place within the meaning of s. 8 .