Myfanwy Susanne Smith

The defendant brought an application under s. 8 of the Charter challenging the facial validity of three search warrants and seeking to exclude evidence under s. 24(2).

The court found that certain information in the Information to Obtain (ITO) regarding a 2016 apartment lab investigation was misleading and should be excised.

However, the remaining evidence, including corroborated confidential informant information, physical surveillance, and electronic tracking data, provided sufficient reasonable grounds for the warrants to be issued for the defendant's residence, business, and vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an order for the return of a 2015 Ford pick-up truck seized as offence-related property following his arrest on charges of trafficking a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a controlled substance contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The applicant argued the vehicle was not required for any proceeding.

The court found that the vehicle constituted offence-related property and that a forfeiture hearing following conviction would be a "proceeding" within the meaning of section 490 of the Criminal Code.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to order release of the seized property where the detention period had not expired and continued detention was required for the forfeiture proceeding.

The application was dismissed.