The accused challenged the admissibility of cell phone evidence, including videos and images, on the basis of a Section 8 Charter violation (unreasonable search and seizure).
The court found that all four accused had standing to bring the challenge.
While the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for the cell phones was facially insufficient, the court considered additional information from an earlier search warrant (Appendix D) during the Section 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis.
The court determined that the Section 8 violation, though present, was not very serious, and while it had a significant impact on privacy interests, the societal interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, particularly given the reliable and important nature of the evidence (videos depicting illegal handgun possession), outweighed the breach.
Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.