The accused brought a pre‑trial Charter motion seeking to quash a telewarrant authorizing searches of two properties and to exclude the resulting evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
The accused argued the telewarrant was improperly issued because it was not impracticable to obtain a warrant in person, the information to obtain lacked reasonable and probable grounds, and the police failed to provide full, frank, and fair disclosure.
The court held that the threshold of impracticability under s. 487.1 of the Criminal Code was met after the officer attempted to obtain a warrant in person but was told the justice of the peace lacked time to review the application.
After reviewing alleged omissions and inaccuracies in the ITO, the court found they were either immaterial, typographical, or properly omitted and that the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuing justice’s decision.
Even if a Charter breach had occurred, the evidence would not have been excluded under the s. 24(2) analysis.
