In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Hart reviewed the application and evidentiary consequences of Mr. Big operation. For the majority, Moldaver J. changed the common law confessions rule so that it applies in Mr. Big scenarios based on a two-pronged test. Immediately after Hart, the SCC rendered a new decision in R v Mack where the two pronged test was leniently applied in favour of the Crown.

In this article I argue that the SCC approach in Hart and its application in Mack failed to address to the core problems that Mr. Big operations pose. It is the purpose of this paper to review the decision in Hart and its subsequent application in Mack, to point out their shortcomings and to make the case for an alternative solution for the issues raised by Mr. Big investigations.