Adele Monaco

The applicant challenged the judicial authorization to search a residence and seize controlled drugs under section 8 of the Charter of Rights.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the facial validity of the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant.

The applicant initially lacked standing, but the Crown conceded the issue after hearing evidence.

The court applied the test from Hunter v. Southam and R. v. Debot, examining whether there was a credibly-based probability that evidence of a criminal offence would be found at the residence.

After excising problematic boiler-plate language and misleading statements from the ITO, the court found that the remaining evidence—comprising information from two confidential sources and police corroboration of biographical details—was sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for the search warrant authorization.

The accused pleaded guilty to six counts of robbery and six counts of using an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence.

The robberies occurred between December 2011 and January 2012 at various financial institutions in Toronto.

The accused displayed an imitation firearm during each robbery and made demands for money, obtaining approximately $34,000 in total with no recovery.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight years less pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in an additional five years, eight months and 19 days of imprisonment.

The sentence balanced principles of denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, taking into account the accused's remorse, medical evidence of improvement, and potential for rehabilitation.

The Crown sought to commit multiple co-accused to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry into numerous drug trafficking, firearms trafficking, and criminal organization charges.

The court applied the test for committal, assessing whether there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit several accused on substantive drug and firearms offences, as well as conspiracy charges.

However, the court discharged certain accused on the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence that they operated as a criminal organization rather than for personal benefit.