K. Aird

The Crown brought an application for directions regarding the procedure to review documents seized from the respondent's residence over which solicitor-client privilege was asserted.

The Crown proposed providing the respondent with a copy of the USB key containing the documents so she could identify privileged materials, while the defence argued for a third-party referee.

The court accepted the Crown's proposal, finding it sensible and protective of the respondent's rights as the privilege holder, and ordered the respondent to review the documents within 60 days.

The accused brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 24(2) seeking to exclude evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant for a residence and motor vehicle in a cocaine trafficking investigation.

The accused alleged misrepresentations, omissions, and insufficient grounds in the information to obtain (ITO), including issues relating to confidential informants and the accused’s connection to the searched residence.

Applying the Garofoli framework and the principles governing confidential informant information in Debot, the court reviewed the amplified record including cross-examination of the affiant.

Although certain information about the accused’s possible alternate address and “no fixed address” status had been omitted from the ITO, the court found the omissions were not made in bad faith and that sufficient grounds remained.

The court concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused was trafficking cocaine and that evidence would be found at the residence and vehicle.