A. Elbaz

The accused brought a Charter s. 8 application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at an apartment and a vehicle, which resulted in the seizure of a loaded handgun and controlled substances.

The accused argued that the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to make full, frank, and fair disclosure, fabricated surveillance evidence, and relied on an unreliable confidential informant.

The court conducted a sub-facial review, excising some erroneous information and amplifying the ITO with omitted facts.

The court found that the affiant was occasionally sloppy but did not deliberately mislead the issuing justice.

Applying the Debot criteria, the court concluded that the confidential informant's tip was sufficiently compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court held that the amplified ITO provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrants and declined to exercise its residual discretion to set them aside, dismissing the application.

The accused was charged with firearm and drug offences after police executed search warrants at an apartment and a vehicle.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude a statement made to police and real evidence seized, alleging violations of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights and arguing the statement was involuntary.

The court found the statement was voluntary and that the police facilitated access to counsel at the first reasonable opportunity.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) violation occurred when police failed to restate the right to counsel after discovering drugs in the vehicle, which significantly changed the accused's jeopardy.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that excluding the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application.

Media organizations applied for access to previously sealed informations to obtain (ITOs) relating to a production order and search warrant issued during a criminal investigation.

The accused sought continuation of a publication ban, arguing that publication of intercepted communications referenced in the ITOs would compromise his right to a fair trial on an extortion charge.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court held that the accused failed to demonstrate a real and serious risk to trial fairness, given existing publicity, the passage of time before trial, jury instructions, and the challenge for cause process.

A third party mentioned in the ITOs argued that publication would damage his reputation, but the court held that third parties generally lack standing to seek publication bans absent exceptional circumstances.

The court concluded that the open court principle prevailed and lifted the remaining publication bans.

Media organizations applied for access to and the ability to publish the contents of an Information to Obtain supporting a search warrant in a major police investigation.

The Provincial Crown and an accused sought a publication ban on references to non-consensual intercepted private communications, arguing protection of the wiretap regime and fair trial rights.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court held that generalized concerns about the wiretap regime and speculative risks to a future jury trial were insufficient to justify restricting openness.

The court emphasized the strong presumption of open courts and the public interest in scrutiny of judicial authorizations and police investigations.

Balancing the competing interests, the court concluded that the salutary effects of a publication ban did not outweigh the significant deleterious effects on freedom of expression and public accountability.