J. Stephen O’Neill

The applicants sought relief under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that a search warrant authorizing the search of their motel room lacked reasonable grounds and that the resulting drug evidence should be excluded.

The reviewing judge found that the information to obtain contained omissions and inaccuracies and that reasonable grounds to search the motel room did not exist, rendering the search unreasonable under s. 8.

However, applying the framework from Grant and Harrison, the court concluded the police acted in overall good faith and that the misleading aspects of the warrant materials were at the lower end of seriousness.

Given the reliability and importance of the seized drug evidence and society’s interest in adjudicating serious trafficking charges on their merits, exclusion under s. 24(2) was not warranted.

The municipal defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing negligence claims as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality failed to enforce by-laws relating to a neighbour’s road construction, drainage issues, and fence encroachments affecting the use and enjoyment of her property.

The court held that the road and drainage allegations were discovered more than two years before the action was commenced and were therefore barred by the limitation period.

However, alleged fence alterations occurring in 2012 and 2013 could potentially constitute newly discoverable claims within the limitation period.

Summary judgment was granted in part, dismissing the road and drainage claims while permitting fence-related claims against the municipality to proceed to trial.