The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences, arguing that the search warrant for his residence violated s. 8 of the Charter.
He contended that the Information to Obtain (ITO) relied on an uncorroborated tip from a confidential informant and lacked a sufficient nexus to his residence.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that a sufficient nexus existed, as police observed the appellant engage in drug transactions immediately after leaving his apartment.
The court also agreed that the ITO was not misleading and the informant's tip was sufficiently compelling.
The appeal was dismissed.
