The accused, charged with arson and related offences, brought four applications during his trial.
He sought to quash a wiretap authorization, exclude the evidence of a police agent, and stay the charges due to late disclosure.
The court granted the application to quash the wiretap authorization, finding that the Information to Obtain (ITO) omitted material facts and failed to accurately present the informant's credibility issues, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.
The wiretap evidence was excluded under section 24(2).
The remaining applications, including the request for a stay of proceedings due to late disclosure, were dismissed, as the late disclosure did not irreparably prejudice the accused's right to make full answer and defence.
