Amy Robern

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion challenging the validity of a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) relied upon by police, which included information from confidential informants and police surveillance, was insufficient to justify the warrant.

The court reviewed the ITO, applying the standard of whether there was reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed to authorize the warrant.

The court found that the information provided by the informants was compelling, credible, and corroborated by police surveillance.

The application was dismissed, and the evidence seized during the search was ruled admissible.

The defendants brought pretrial applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The charges of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking arose after police stopped the defendants' vehicle based on confidential informant tips, surveillance, and tracking device data.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest all three defendants, making the arrests lawful and not arbitrary.

Consequently, the searches incident to arrest were also lawful.

Furthermore, the court upheld the validity of the search warrants issued for the cellular phones found in the vehicle, concluding the Information to Obtain (ITO) affidavits contained sufficient credible evidence.

The applications were dismissed.