The accused was charged with careless storage of ammunition, possession of a prohibited weapon (crossbow), production of cannabis, and possession of cannabis for trafficking purposes.

The defence brought a Charter application challenging the validity of the search warrant on the basis that there were insufficient reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained misleading information, impermissible speculation, and material omissions.

The affiant drew unreasonable inferences unsupported by the evidence, particularly regarding the accused's involvement in an outdoor marijuana grow operation discovered on an adjacent property.

The court found a serious breach of section 8 Charter rights and excluded all evidence obtained from the search warrant execution.

The Crown prosecuted two accused for production of cannabis marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused operated two large-scale marihuana grow operations at 434 Birchmount Road in Toronto and 7275 Rapiston Court in Mississauga.

The Crown relied on extensive surveillance evidence spanning May and June 2012, culminating in the execution of search warrants on June 26, 2012.

The accused Lee testified in his own defence, claiming to be a garden supply distributor, but his evidence was found to be riddled with contradictions and implausibilities.

The court rejected his testimony and found both accused guilty of production and possession for trafficking based on circumstantial evidence, including their repeated attendance at the facilities, the transfer of marihuana clones between locations, and the discovery of grow operation materials and marihuana at their residences.

The Crown sought to qualify a York Regional Police detective as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence regarding marijuana production, distribution, trafficking, pricing, and related matters.

The defence objected on grounds of bias, arguing that the proposed expert had conducted surveillance prior to the search warrants and was from the same police unit as the principal investigators.

The trial judge applied the four-part Mohan test and the Abbey framework, finding that while the expert met the threshold requirements, certain portions of the report were inadmissible due to bias concerns and case-specific opinions that could usurp the trier of fact's role.

The accused was charged with unlawfully producing cannabis contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown executed a search warrant at the accused's residence and discovered a marijuana grow operation with over 1,000 plants.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrant, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds and breached his Charter section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court conducted a detailed review of the ITO, examining allegations of material omissions, misleading information, and deficiencies raised by the defence.

The court found that while the ITO contained minor omissions and could have included more detail, the affiant was not acting in bad faith and the core substance of the ITO provided sufficient grounds for the justice of the peace to issue the warrant.

The application was dismissed and the evidence was admitted.