The appellant appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime, arguing the trial judge erred in the s. 24(2) Charter analysis by admitting evidence obtained from warrants based on a redacted Information to Obtain (ITO).
The trial judge found a s. 8 Charter breach due to insufficient grounds in the redacted ITO but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, finding no error in the application of the Grant criteria.
The court clarified that the Crown's litigation choice to proceed under Garofoli step five (redacted information), rather than step six (unredacted information), does not automatically imply bad faith for the purpose of the s. 24(2) analysis, especially when the Crown took active steps to provide a summary and the defence consented to its use.
