The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a loaded handgun and other items seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.
The warrant was based on information from a confidential informant.
The accused sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and challenged the sufficiency of the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO).
The court dismissed the application to cross-examine the affiant, finding it would not assist in determining if the warrant could have issued.
The court held that the judicial summary provided sufficient information for the accused to make full answer and defence.
Ultimately, the court found no s. 8 breach, as the informant's tip was compelling, credible, and corroborated, providing reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.
In the alternative, the court held the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).