The applicants, charged with drug and gun offences following a police investigation, challenged the search warrants that led to their charges under ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter.
They argued that the police failed to preserve relevant CCTV footage and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds.
The court found that a police officer deliberately misled the affiant and the issuing justice, and intentionally failed to seize relevant CCTV video, violating s. 7.
The court also found that the search warrants lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating s. 8.
Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the police misconduct was egregious and subverted the search warrant process, warranting the exclusion of the seized evidence.
