The applicants brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash a search warrant for their residence and exclude evidence under s. 8 of the Charter.
They argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds, relied on stale information, and omitted material facts regarding a vehicle's registration to a construction company.
The court found that while the affiant ought to have disclosed the vehicle registration information, the omission did not amount to bad faith or subversion of the authorization process.
After amplifying the ITO to include the omitted information, the court concluded the issuing justice could still have reasonably found sufficient grounds based on the totality of the surveillance evidence.
The application was dismissed.
