George Thomson

The police received an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip that the accused was growing marijuana.

Based on the tip and subsequent police observations, a search warrant was obtained and executed, leading to drug charges.

At trial, the accused sought disclosure of the tip sheet, which the trial judge ordered produced after editing out identifying details.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the tip sheet was protected by informer privilege, which is absolute subject only to the 'innocence at stake' exception.

The Court concluded that the trial judge erred in editing and disclosing the document, as it is impossible to know what details might reveal an anonymous informer's identity.

The police received an anonymous tip about marijuana cultivation at the appellants' home.

After a fruitless perimeter check, officers knocked on the door, smelled marijuana when it was opened, and arrested the appellants.

They secured the premises, obtained a search warrant based partly on the smell, and seized marijuana plants.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that approaching a home to secure evidence exceeds the implied licence to knock and constitutes a search under s. 8 of the Charter.

The warrantless 'sniff' search was unreasonable, rendering the subsequent warrant invalid.

However, the Court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2), reasoning that it was non-conscriptive real evidence, the police acted in good faith, and exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.