Frances Monardo

The accused challenged the validity of a search warrant issued to search a residence suspected of containing a marijuana grow operation.

The defence argued that a nine-day gap between the last observation and the date of arrest rendered the warrant invalid and constituted a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The court conducted a Garofoli review and found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrant, including direct observations of marijuana odour, FLIR thermal imaging showing heat anomalies, hydro consumption records indicating unusual usage patterns, and absence of occupancy indicators.

The court dismissed the application, finding the warrant was lawfully issued.

The accused was charged with marijuana production and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

At trial, the defence sought leave to cross-examine the affiant on the search warrant to challenge its sub-facial validity.

The defence proposed questioning on five points: the specifics of observations made in April 2013, the tip from a confidential human source, the significance of Hydro readings, the significance of FLIR observations, and the absence of confirming observations on the day of arrest.

The court applied the test from R. v. Pires and found that the defence had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that cross-examination on four of the five points would assist in determining the material issue.

However, the court granted leave to cross-examine on the FLIR observation point, finding a reasonable likelihood that such cross-examination would be relevant to the material issue of whether there was a basis for the issuing justice to be satisfied there were reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The accused was charged with three criminal offences related to a fire caused by an explosion of heated isopropyl alcohol during cannabis oil production in his condominium apartment, and four drug offences related to the production and possession of cannabis resin.

The court found the accused guilty of recklessly causing damage to property knowing it was occupied by others under section 433(a) of the Criminal Code.

On the drug charges, the court found the accused guilty of production of cannabis resin but acquitted him of possession for the purpose of trafficking, finding instead that his explanation regarding personal medicinal use was reasonably possible.

The court convicted the accused of simple possession of cannabis resin and simple possession of marijuana.