Michael Passeri

This is an addendum to a Garofoli ruling dismissing an application to quash a search warrant.

The original ruling was released on August 19, 2025.

The application involved a search warrant based substantially on evidence from a confidential informant, requiring extensive redactions to the Information to Obtain to protect informer privilege.

The initial ruling was sent only to the Crown to prevent inadvertent disclosure of the informant's identity.

Upon Crown counsel's request, one sentence in paragraph 13 of the ruling was redacted before release to defence counsel and the trial office.

The unredacted paragraph and pertinent emails are sealed as exhibits to preserve the record.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery of jewelry stores and one count of fraud over $5,000 relating to a staged accident.

The court found the robberies were well-planned, sophisticated, and involved serious violence and risk to the public.

After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the offender's relative youth and prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a global sentence of 7 years' imprisonment before credit.

The court granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic and credit for time spent on strict bail, resulting in a net sentence of 44.5 months to serve.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 36 months, with a net delay of 34.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that despite the applicant's complacency in moving matters forward, the Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or justify the delay under the transitional Morin framework, particularly given the simplicity of the applicant's case and his expressed disinterest in a lengthy Garofoli application pursued by co-accused.

The court granted the stay.

The applicants brought a motion under s. 8 of the Charter challenging the installation of police video surveillance cameras in the hallways of their condominium buildings.

The police had installed some cameras with the consent of condominium management prior to obtaining a general warrant, and failed to disclose these prior installations when applying for the warrant.

The court held that the warrantless installation based on management's consent did not violate s. 8, as there is a diminished expectation of privacy in condominium hallways.

While the failure to disclose the prior installations breached the duty of full, fair and frank disclosure, the court found the omission was not material to the issuance of the warrant.

The motion was dismissed.

The Crown applied under s. 521 of the Criminal Code to review a justice of the peace’s order releasing the accused on bail for an attempted murder charge arising from a gang-related shooting.

The Crown argued that detention was required on the secondary and tertiary grounds and that the release decision was clearly inappropriate.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework in St‑Cloud governing bail reviews under ss. 520 and 521, the court held that intervention is warranted only for legal error, a clearly inappropriate decision, or material new evidence.

The reviewing judge concluded that the justice of the peace committed no legal error and that the balancing of factors under s. 515(10)(b) and (c) was not clearly inappropriate, particularly given the circumstantial nature of the Crown’s case.

The Crown’s bail review application was dismissed.

During a preliminary inquiry into charges including attempted murder, the Crown sought to introduce a written report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police indicating that a DNA specimen from a jacket found at the crime scene matched the accused Russell Bullock on the National DNA Data Bank.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the report, arguing inadequate notice was given and that the evidence was not credible or trustworthy.

The court ruled the report admissible under section 540(7) of the Criminal Code, finding that the legislative framework governing the National DNA Databank and the statutory duties of the RCMP Commissioner provided sufficient credibility and trustworthiness to the evidence at the preliminary inquiry stage.