The applicant, accused of bank fraud, brought a pre-trial motion challenging the admissibility of evidence seized from his dwelling under a telewarrant.
The court found multiple section 8 Charter violations, including that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was involved or that evidence would be found at his home, the warrant was impermissibly vague, and it unlawfully authorized a night search without justification.
Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the serious Charter-infringing conduct and profound impact on the applicant's privacy outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.
The seized evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.
