Mr. E. Gilman

The applicant challenged the validity of search warrants under s. 8 of the Charter at a Garofoli hearing (Step 6).

The Crown sought to defend warrants for searches at three locations based on information from confidential informants.

The court applied the "three Cs" test from R. v. Debot (compelling, credible, corroborated) to assess the reliability of the informant information.

The court found that the informant's detailed, first-hand information about the accused's drug dealing activities, combined with the informant's credibility and police corroboration, met the requisite standard for warrant issuance.

The warrants were upheld as valid.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application challenging the police suspension of his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Following the execution of three search warrants at locations associated with the applicant, police arrested him and deliberately delayed his access to counsel for approximately 20 hours while executing the warrants and conducting searches.

The applicant was not permitted to speak with counsel until the following morning in bail court.

The court found that the police violated the applicant's section 10(b) rights by deliberately delaying implementation of the right to counsel without valid justification.

The court further found that the seized evidence (drugs and currency) was obtained in a manner that infringed the applicant's Charter rights and that exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) was warranted, as admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant on the grounds that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was heavily redacted and lacked sufficient grounds to justify the warrant.

The Crown applied for a telewarrant to search three locations based primarily on information from two confidential informants regarding drug trafficking.

The applicant challenged the warrant under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, arguing insufficient nexus between the alleged criminality and the locations, and lack of currency in the information.

The court found that the heavily redacted ITO, even with limited peel-backs and clarifications, did not contain sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice to find reasonable and probable grounds for the search.