Michael Little

The accused were charged with three counts of break, enter and theft and two counts of possession of property obtained by crime.

They brought a pre-trial application challenging the validity of a search warrant on the basis that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating their section 8 Charter rights.

Additionally, one accused alleged a violation of his section 10(b) rights to counsel.

The court found that while the Information to Obtain contained misleading information and conclusory statements, the remaining evidence was sufficient to support issuance of the warrant.

The court also found a serious breach of section 10(b) rights but determined that the evidence should be admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the breach was not temporally or factually connected to the seizure of the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice on March 11, 2016.

The appeal concerned the lawfulness of a police entry and search of commercial premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that exigent circumstances justified the police entry prior to execution of the search warrant, that the officer's evidence regarding the impracticability of obtaining a warrant in person satisfied the requirements for a telewarrant, and that any misdescription of the municipal address constituted at most a minor technical error that did not justify exclusion of evidence.