ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MELVIN OGBOMO AND TYVON HALL
Before Justice Seth Weinstein
Heard on June 5, July 17 and 31, August 20, October 3 and 20, November 5 and December 8, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on January 14, 2026
Christina Sibian counsel for the Crown
Jeff Hershberg and Jo-Anne Schneeweiss counsel for Melvin Ogbomo
Alison Craig and Stefan Rinas counsel for Tyvon Hall
I. INTRODUCTION
1Mr. Ogbomo and Mr. Hall are charged with firearm and drugs offences following the execution of a search warrant at Mr. Ogbomo’s residence. The search yielded four loaded handguns, cocaine and cash.
2Mr. Ogbomo has applied for an order excluding the evidence seized pursuant to the execution of the warrant. His attack on the authorization raises both facial and sub-facial issues. He argues that the search warrant was facially invalid as the affiant did not have subjective grounds to believe that the items sought would be in the places searched. Mr. Ogbomo also argues that based on the amplified record, the warrant could not have issued. Finally, that I should exercise my residual discretion to set aside the warrant because the affiant made misleading statements both in the ITO and during his testimony when he was cross-examined on this application.
3The Crown argues that there is no basis to set aside the warrant, either because of the affiant’s conduct, or because there were insufficient grounds. The Crown argues that any incorrect or misleading statements can be excised from the ITO. The Crown argues that, even after they are corrected, there are ample grounds to support the issuance of the warrant.
4The case raises a host of inter-related issues which, broadly stated, are as follows:
Whether the warrant was facially invalid in that the affiant did not subjectively have reasonable grounds to believe that the items sought would be in the places searched.
Whether there were any misstatements or omissions in the ITO and, if so, whether they should be excised or corrected.
Whether, on the amplified record, there was a basis for the issuing justice to issue the warrant.
Whether the affiant’s conduct was so subversive of the authorization process that the warrant must be set aside.
If I find that the warrant should be set aside, whether the evidence ought to be excluded under section 24(2).
Overview of the Relevant Facts
5I will begin with an overview of the facts relevant to determining these issues.
The Initial Investigation
6On November 10, 2023, police responded to a shooting (“shooting investigation”). The alleged victim was Ahmad Amiri (“Amiri”).
7Amiri told the police that he had been the victim of a robbery. He advised that he went to an apartment located on the 6th floor of 510 Curran Place in Mississauga to sell a watch to a person known to him as “Jay”. According to police, Amiri alleged that Jay and an unknown male then drove him to an underground garage where he was assaulted and shot at twice. He also told police that Jay had been living at 601-510 Curran Place for five months prior to the shooting.
8Amiri provided police with a YouTube video of Jay and his associates. After reviewing the video, police identified the person Amiri claimed was Jay as being Mr. Ogbomo.
9Despite identifying him, the police did not charge Mr. Ogbomo and never sought to obtain a search warrant. Rather, it appeared that the investigation became dormant. The investigation appears to have remained inactive until March 2024, when a confidential source (“CS”) told their handler that Mr. Ogbomo was in possession of a firearm.
10The CS also provided information about Mr. Ogbomo’s physical appearance, that he lived at a condominium in Mississauga, his connection to a grey Mercedes-Benz and that he went by the street name “Melly”.
11After receiving this information, the police conducted surveillance of Mr. Ogbomo. On March 18, 2024, police confirmed that Mr. Ogbomo was accessing 601-510 Curran Place and driving a grey Mercedes-Benz.
The ITO
12On March 20, 2024, Detective Constable Piara Dhaliwal sought authorization to search 601-510 Curran Place, an associated storage locker and a 2017 Grey Mercedes-Benz. The items being sought were firearms, ammunition and property associated with the alleged robbery and shooting involving Amiri.
13In the ITO, Detective Constable Dhaliwal deposed that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Ogbomo was one of the perpetrators of the robbery and shooting of Amiri. He concluded that the items to be searched for would afford evidence of the offences and would be present in the residence and vehicle.
14Detective Constable Dhaliwal principally relied on the following bodies of information in forming his grounds:
Information provided by Amiri to investigating officers on November 10, 2023.
Information provided from other officers involved in the shooting investigation.
Review of CCTV video footage gathered during the shooting investigation.
Information from the confidential source who advised that they had seen Mr. Ogbomo in possession of a firearm.
Information purportedly linking Mr. Ogbomo to the 601-510 Curran Place.
Surveillance operations of Mr. Ogbomo.
(a) Shooting Occurrence Report
15In support of his grounds to believe that Mr. Ogbomo was involved in the shooting, Detective Constable Dhaliwal relied on an occurrence report prepared by PC Constable Simpson that included the following information:
i. When police arrived at the scene of the shooting, Amiri was not wearing any pants and gasping for air.
ii. Amiri told officers that he met the suspects in Mississauga to sell a watch.
iii. One of the suspects took the watch without paying. Amiri then got into the suspects’ car hoping that he would get paid.
iv. Amiri was driven to an underground garage.
v. Amiri ran out of the underground garage and was followed by a white BMW.
vi. The suspects shot at Amiri twice and narrowly missed him.
vii. That the suspects took Amiri’s pants, which contained his phone, wallet and keys to his Lamborghini.
viii. Police reviewed CCTV footage and learned that the white BMW and Lamborghini had entered the underground garage together.
ix. Amiri told police that he knew two of the suspects because he had rented cars to them before.
x. Amiri did not provide any further description of the suspects other than they were black.
xi. A single cartridge casing was found on Richgrove Drive approximately 50 meters east of Willowridge.
xii. A cell phone was thrown out from the white BMW and recovered by police.
(b) Statement of Ahmad Amiri (November 11, 2023)
16Detective Constable Dhaliwal also relied on the following summary of a statement Amiri had provided to Detective Constable Stojic on the night of the shooting.
i. Amiri knew Jay and his friend for about six months through his car rental business.
ii. Jay was a black male, light skinned, about 25 years of age. He is a rapper and gang member from Mount Olive area.
iii. The other male was black, dark skinned, 25 years of age, and shorter than Jay. He is very quiet and violent. He is also a rapper from Mount Olive gang.
iv. These males are part of a very large violent gang.
v. Amiri had been dealing with the males in other things but did not want to elaborate.
vi. Jay and Amiri had a discussion regarding a $45,000 diamond watch.
vii. Amiri agreed to sell the watch for $30,000 cash and took a friend’s Lamborghini to Jay's place.
viii. Jay and his friends have a two-bedroom condominium at 601-510 Curran Place in Mississauga.
ix. Amiri arrived with the watch at approximately 8 or 9 p.m. He said that he went inside the apartment and noticed Jay was there with the quiet male and some friends.
x. Jay took the watch and refused to return it. He offered $10,000 cash and showed him the money.
xi. At some point, Amiri and Jay walked to a convenience store where Jay met up with a black female about the same age as Jay.
xii. Jay and the female left Amiri at the front of the building.
xiii. Amiri kept calling but Jay refused to answer. Amiri eventually accessed the building and went to Apartment #601. He kept knocking on the door and remained in the hallway for about an hour.
xiv. Jay eventually opened the door and told Amiri that if he wanted the $30,000, he was going to have to go with him to get it.
xv. Amiri advised that Jay had a white BMW parked in a parking spot of underground condominium. He got into the car and went with Jay and his friends in hopes of getting his watch back.
xvi. Jay and his friends drove Amiri to an underground parking lot where there were at least five other males.
xvii. Amiri, Jay and the other quiet dark-skinned male attacked him and everyone else joined in. He fell to the ground where he was kicked and punched at least 100 times.
xviii. Jay and the quiet male took Amiri’s shoes and pants. Inside his pants were keys for the Lamborghini. Eventually, they stopped beating him and most of the unknown males walked away.
xix. Amiri advised that both Jay and the other dark-skinned male had guns in their hands. They told him to lie on the ground face down. They were standing over him but he refused to go on his stomach. He eventually ran out from the garage
xx. Jay and the dark-skinned male approach Amiri in the white BMW. As they drove towards him, Jay was in the front passenger seat and the dark-skinned male was sitting in the back.
xxi. Both Jay and the dark-skinned male each fired one shot at Amiri before driving away.
xxii. Amiri provided images of Jay from a YouTube rap video and a screenshot of an Instagram post from what he said was Jay’s account. The username associated with that account was ‘guhtrugang’.
17Further investigation revealed that the song in the YouTube video was titled Getway x. Guhtru x Crazy 2.0, and that Guhtru was identified as Mr. Ogbomo. A fingerprint found on the cell phone thrown from the BMW was matched to Mr. Hall.
(c) Surveillance Footage
18The surveillance footage police obtained from 510 Curran Place on November 13, 2023 revealed the following:
a) At approximately 8:30 p.m., Mr. Ogbomo exited unit 601 and returned with Amiri who was carrying a small box in his arms.
b) Just before 9:00 p.m., two unknown males arrive on the sixth floor and meet Mr. Ogbomo in the hallway. Shortly after, Amiri and another male exit the unit, and the four males and Amiri leave the sixth floor.
c) At 9:07 p.m., an unknown female knocked on Unit 601. Approximately 30 minutes later, the unknown female and Mr. Ogbomo entered the apartment.
d) Approximately ten minutes later, Amiri attends the sixth floor and knocks on the door. No one opened the door and Amiri waited outside. He is observed sitting down in front Unit 601.
e) Just prior to 11:00 p.m., Mr. Ogbomo exits the apartment. Amiri, Mr. Ogbomo and one of the unknown males take the elevator to the ground floor and exit the building through the front doors.
f) Amiri, Mr. Ogbomo and an unknown male are seen walking from 510 Curran Place into Panda Convenience store. Approximately two minutes later, the white BMW stops on the northwest corner and they get into the vehicle.
(d) Confidential Source Information
19Police also received firsthand confidential source information that Mr. Ogbomo was in possession of a firearm. The source information included information regarding Mr. Ogbomo’s physical appearance, his connection to a grey Mercedes-Benz, that he was living at a condominium in Mississauga and that Mr. Ogbomo went by the street name “Melly”.
20On March 18, 2024, after receiving the CS information, the police conducted surveillance at 510 Curran Place. It revealed the following:
i. A male believed to be Mr. Ogbomo and a female were seen exiting and entering Unit 601. Based on the way the male was dressed, police believed he was living in Apartment 601.
ii. The same male left the address for approximately 5 minutes before returning.
iii. The same male leaves the apartment again and walks towards a charcoal four door Mercedes.
21An MTO search revealed that the Mercedes was registered to Briana Crislyn Graham. Police believe her driver’s licence photo resembled the female who was with Mr. Ogbomo on November 10, 2023.
The Record on Review
22To protect the CS’s identity, much of their information was redacted from the ITO provided to the defence. Relying on Step 2 from R. v. Garofoli (1990), 60 C.C.C. (3d) 161 (S.C.C.), and following the procedure in R. v. Crevier, 2015 ONCA 619, the Crown supplied the Court with an unredacted ITO and prepared judicial summaries of the CS’s information relied upon in the ITO. These summaries were approved by the Court and then provided to counsel.
23The Applicant also sought to cross-examine Detective Constable Dhaliwal, on his training and several alleged omissions and misleading statements in the ITO. I permitted limited cross-examination on these issues.
Evidence of the Affiant
24Cross-examination of Detective Constable Dhaliwal revealed several facts that had not been disclosed to the issuing justice, including:
That Detective Constable Dhaliwal had no formal training with respect to drafting search warrants. He self-trained from reading other officers’ search warrants but did not know whether any of those warrants had been declared invalid.
At the time of this search warrant Detective Constable Dhaliwal had drafted approximately six warrants.
In 2015, Detective Constable Dhaliwal had been found to have provided deliberately misleading testimony in a trial.
This finding led to an SIU investigation that resulted in him being charged with assault causing bodily harm. Detective Constable Dhaliwal was never convicted. He did, however, receive some sort of internal disciplinary action.
At the time of the shooting occurrence, Amiri had a criminal record, including for offences of dishonesty. Detective Constable Dhaliwal explained that he never provides a victim’s criminal record in an ITO.
Detective Constable Dhaliwal did not investigate Amiri or the circumstances giving rise to how he came into possession of a luxury watch, the legality of his rental car business, whether the Lamborghini was stolen or whether he had any gang affiliation. Detective Constable Dhaliwal stated that this information would not have detracted from his grounds to believe that Amiri was the victim in the shooting occurrence.
Detective Constable Dhaliwal did not advise the issuing justice that the police had expressed concerns about Amiri’s credibility or that Amiri was uncooperative with the police following the occurrence.
Amiri suffered no injuries consistent with his claim that he had been assaulted and kicked 100 times.
That there was an apparent inconsistency between Amiri’s statement and the video surveillance which suggested that ‘Jay’ was not Mr. Ogbomo.
Detective Constable Dhaliwal initially testified that he prepared the entirety of the ITO but later admitted that he copied and pasted the entirety of the confidential source information from an email sent by the handler.
Detective Constable Dhaliwal had no knowledge of the handler’s experience or training, or the results of their rumoured disciplinary proceedings.
That the source’s information that Mr. Dhaliwal was living in a condo somewhere in Mississauga with a male named Tarique Daley was contradicted by police records which associated Tyrique Daley with an address in Whitby.
Amiri’s Statement to Detective Constable Stojic
25As noted above, Detective Constable Dhaliwal relied on what he described as a “statement” Amiri gave to Detective Constable Stojic on the night of the shooting. On consent, the defence relied on a transcript of Detective Stojic’s evidence from another proceeding concerning the circumstances surrounding this statement.
26Detective Constable Stojic testified that he did not take a formal statement from Amiri and did not audio or video-record their discussions. Rather, he prepared a summary of a two-hour conversation he had with Amiri while transporting him from the scene and while in his car at 23 Division.
27According to Detective Constable Stojic, Amiri feared for his safety, did not want to be recorded, and refused to enter the police station. To learn what had happened, Detective Constable Stojic engaged him in conversation and later summarized the substance of what he said in his notebook. He took no contemporaneous notes while speaking to Amiri and the account in his notebook was not verbatim.
28Detective Constable Stojic testified that he prepared a typed summary of the statement at the request of Detective Constable Dhaliwal but could not recall when it had been prepared. Despite his acknowledgment that he did not take a statement, Detective Constable Stojic titled the document “Statement of Ahmad Amiri (November 11, 2023)”.
29Detective Constable Dhaliwal testified that he was unaware of the circumstances surrounding Amiri’s statement when he swore the ITO. He believed Amiri had given a formal statement and saw no reason to doubt the reliability of Detective Constable Stojic’s notes.
A. Applicable Legal Principles
30A search warrant represents a careful balancing act. The warrant only issues when the state’s interest in investigating crime outweighs the individual’s privacy interests. This occurs when police provide credible information establishing reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that the searches will afford evidence with respect to the offence at the places to be searched.
31A person has reasonable grounds when they believe there is a credibly based probability that the material fact exists: Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145 at p. 167. This requires more than mere suspicion: the person must subjectively believe the fact is probable and have information that would lead a reasonable person in their position to the same conclusion.
Standard of Review
32Once issued, a search warrant is presumptively valid. To challenge its validity, the accused must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there was insufficient credible and reliable evidence for the issuing justice to find reasonable and probable grounds that an offence had been committed and that evidence would be found at the specified time and place: Regina v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 at para. 40; Regina v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60 at para. 16; Regina v. Araujo, 2000 SCC 65 at para. 51.
33A facial challenge to the warrant alleges that the record before the issuing justice was insufficient to establish one or more of the statutory preconditions. This involves a review of the ITO without any amplification of the record. In assessing whether an ITO contains sufficient facts to establish reasonable and probable grounds, the ITO must be considered as a whole, since each piece of evidence informs and contextualizes the others. This assessment must be conducted on “a practical, non-technical and common-sense basis”: Regina v. Sadikov, 2014 ONCA 72 at paras. 81-84; Regina v. Prosser, 2016 ONCA 467 at para. 16.
34A sub-facial challenge alleges that the record did not accurately reflect what the affiant knew or ought to have known: World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15, at para. 120. An attack on sub-facial validity involves an examination of the ITO with a view to “impeaching the reliability of its content”. It is not a hearing de novo and the reviewing court cannot substitute its own view for that of the issuing justice. It is a deferential standard to determine whether on the record, as amplified on the review, the authorizing justice could have issued the warrant. If the warrant could have issued the warrant, the reviewing judge must not interfere: Sadikov, at paras. 38, 88; Araujo, at para. 50
35In reviewing the warrant, the Court must exclude erroneous information contained in the ITO and may consider additional evidence adduced on the voir dire to correct minor errors. The review process is not a trial and must not become one. The purpose of excision is not to excise information that contradicts other information, but rather to excise information that is not correct: Araujo, paras 51, 58-59; and Regina v. Ebanks, 2009 ONCA 851, at paras. 21, 28.
36The warrant review is also not intended to be an exercise in examining the conduct of the police with a fine-tooth comb, “fastening on their minor errors or acts or omissions, and embellishing those flaws to the point where it is the police conduct that is on trial rather than the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the application”: Regina v. Nguyen, 2011 ONCA 465, at para. 57. The jurisprudence has recognized that police officers are not legal draftspersons and may not word things as concisely as counsel. It will also not be surprising that an ITO has some flaws in it. The issue to be determined if whether the core substance of the ITO could support the issuance of the warrant: Nguyen, at para. 57.
Duty to Make Full, Frank and Fair Disclosure
37The police must provide full frank and fair disclosure when swearing an ITO. This requirement is predicated on the ex parte nature of the procedure.
38Full and frank disclosure of material information which should be included in an ITO demands inclusion of: (a) anything that could undermine the probability that the alleged offences were committed; (b) undermine the probability that the authorization will afford evidence of these crimes; or (c) anything that could challenge the reliability and credibility of the information the affiant relies upon in establishing their grounds. The affiant must not pick and choose among relevant facts to achieve their desired outcome: Morelli, at para 58; : Araujo, at paras. 47, 60; Regina v. Booth, 2019 ONCA 970, at para. 54.
39Even where it has been established that information in an ITO is inaccurate or omits material facts, it does not follow that the statutory requirements have not been met. Errors or omissions in an ITO, whether fraudulent or inadvertent, are, on their own, not a sufficient basis to find bad faith or set aside a warrant. While the existence of fraud, non-disclosure, misleading evidence and new evidence are relevant to the review of the search warrant, their impact is to determine whether after the offending portions of the ITO are excised and after relevant amplification there continues to be any basis for the decision of the issuing judge: Araujo, at paras. 51-60; Garofoli at p. 1452; ; Sadikov, at para. 87; Regina v. Nero, 2106 ONCA 160 at para. 72.
Residual Discretion to Set Aside Warrant
40Even though the warrants could have issued, the Court maintains a residual discretion to set them aside. This discretion is not contingent on finding a Charter breach. Rather, the residual discretion can be used when the police conduct was so subversive of the authorization process that the warrant must be set aside to protect the court’s process. The standard to use this discretion is high. It has been described as conduct that amounts to an abuse of process. It may even be the “clearest of cases” standard where, as here, what is claimed would gut the Crown’s case to such an extent as to amount to a stay of proceedings: Regina v. Paryniuk, at paras. 69, 74, 80-81; Regina v. Phan, 2020 ONCA 298 at para. 56; Regina v. Vivar, 2009 ONCA 433 at para. 2.
B. Application of Principles to the Issues
41With these principles in mind, I begin by outlining the approach taken to assess the sufficiency of the warrant.
42The Crown argues that the redacted ITO provided sufficient grounds linking Mr. Ogbomo to the residence and vehicle and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the items sought would remain at the residence four months after the shooting and robbery.
43The Crown submits that the warrant can be upheld without the confidential source information, asserting that there were sufficient grounds to issue it even without that compelling, credible, and corroborated material. I disagree. In my view, it is necessary to proceed to Step 6 of the Garofoli analysis to determine whether the warrant could properly have issued. Given that approximately four months had passed between the shooting and the warrant application, the source information was required to refresh the otherwise dated information in the redacted ITO.
(i) Is the Warrant Facially Invalid?
44Mr. Ogbomo contends that the warrant is facially invalid in that Detective Constable Dhaliwal did not assert reasonable grounds to believe that the items would be in the places searched. Counsel points to the following passages of the ITO in support of his position that the officer merely suspected that the material sought would be located:
“A strong possibility exists the firearm and clothing will be at the residence”.
“I also believe the clothing, cellphone and jewelry could be located inside the apartment.”
“A possibility exists that Melvin Ogbomo held on to these items in his residence or motor vehicle”.
From my experience, it is possible people in possession of a firearm will keep them in their motor vehicle to hide it from the people they live with and to avoid travelling with the firearm to/from their residence.
45Counsel argues that reference to “possibly” and “could be” is insufficient to ground a sufficient basis for the issuance of a search warrant.
46In reviewing a warrant for sufficiency, the reviewing justice must adopt a common-sense and holistic approach. Using words such as “probably” or “possibly” in the ITO, does not necessarily mean that the affiant lacked the requisite belief. The proper approach is not to fixate on isolated words but to assess the ITO as a whole. When read contextually, the affidavit demonstrates that Detective Constable Dhaliwal subjectively believed that the items sought would be found in Mr. Ogbomo’s residence or vehicle. He explained that individuals who possess firearms tend to retain them because they are valued and difficult to obtain. He also stated that in his experience, people keep firearms close to them, typically in their residence, for protection. This reasoning, coupled with the CS information and evidence linking Mr. Ogbomo to the residence and vehicle, supports the conclusion that the affiant held the necessary belief.
Were There Objective Grounds to Believe that a Firearm Would Be Located?
47I do not accept Mr. Ogbomo’s submission that there was insufficient detail to objectively substantiate Detective Constable Dhaliwal’s belief that the items would be found at the place of the search. Relying on the decision in Regina v. Blake, [2023] O.J. No. 2051 the defence submits that a target’s association with a location is insufficient on its own to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the items sought are at those places.
48In effect, the defence is arguing that there must be some direct evidence that the target of the search warrant actually possessed the items sought in their home. However, the Court of Appeal has made clear that there need not be specific evidence that a target possessed the evidence in the location of the search to ground a warrant. Moreover, in Regina v. Herta, Justice Fairburn held that evidence that the location being searched is the target’s residence can support a reasonable inference that the target would keep their firearm there. As Justice George explained in Regina v. Kalonji, 2022 ONCA 415:
21In the end, I agree with the appellant that the trial judge misapplied Herta to the facts of this case. Of note, she appears to have ignored these crucial passages from Herta, in which Fairburn J.A. (as she then was) noted that the address searched was not the residence of Derek Callahan, the person said to possess a gun, and that if the address had been his residence it might have given rise to a reasonable inference that Callahan would keep his rifle there:
1670 Clover Avenue was not the “residence of Derek Callahan”. It was the residence of [Mr. Herta]. The correct wording could have been easily placed on the face of the warrant. This is not just about technicalities. If 1670 Clover Avenue had in fact been Callahan’s residence, it might have given rise to the reasonable inference that Callahan would secret his rifle at his own place. That inference falls away when the true state of facts is known.
49Unlike in Blake, there was ample evidence before the issuing justice that Mr. Ogbomo was living at 601 - 510 Curran Place. Amiri told investigators that Jay had a condominium at that address, Mr. Ogbomo was seen exiting and entering Unit 601 on November 10, 2023. He was also seen freely coming and going into the unit and on March 18, 2024. Based in the way he was dressed, police believed that he was living there.
50The Crown was not relying on generalizations that anyone possessing firearms would necessarily keep them at home or in a vehicle. In this case, there was evidence that Mr. Ogbomo committed the robbery at his home and left from that home shortly before the shooting. It is therefore reasonable to infer that he had the gun in his residence or car prior to the shooting. Although four months had passed, the CS’s recent observation of Mr. Ogbomo with a firearm strengthened the inference that the weapon would be found in one of these locations. Combined with evidence that Mr. Ogbomo was living in Unit 601 when the warrant was sought, this made it reasonable to conclude that the items sought would be located there. The nature of the property further supports this inference. Firearms are valuable, difficult to obtain, and not typically treated as transient objects. These characteristics make it more likely that a person who possesses such a weapon would retain it over time.
51For these reasons, when viewed holistically and in a common-sense manner, I am satisfied that the ITO provided both the subjective belief and the objective evidentiary foundation required to establish reasonable grounds: Araujo, at para. 51; Vu, 2013 SCC 60 at para. 1.
(ii) Material Misrepresentations
52Mr. Ogbomo has launched a sub-facial attack on the ITO, alleging that Detective Constable Dhaliwal made material misstatements and omissions concerning several key pieces of evidence. As noted above, I granted leave for limited cross-examination of Detective Constable Dhaliwal on some of these alleged misrepresentations. I have considered the results of that cross-examination in determining whether any excisions or amplification of evidence are necessary to properly assess the sufficiency of the grounds set out in the ITO.
The Affiant’s Failure to Advise the Issuing Justice of his Background
53The cross-examination revealed that Detective Constable Dhaliwal received little to no training on the drafting of search warrants. It was also learned that Detective Constable Dhaliwal never told the issuing justice of the 2015 finding that he had provided deliberately misleading evidence. It is submitted that these were material omissions that undermined the validity of the warrant.
54In my view, the absence of any reference to his training, or lack thereof, was not a material omission. A warrant can be issued even though the officer may never have written a warrant before. Moreover, courts are not required to uncritically accept or defer to a police officer’s conclusion simply because it is grounded in their experience and training. Ultimately, the factors that support the issuance of a warrant are generated by an assessment of the officer’s grounds and not on the assessment of the officer’s training and experience drafting warrants: Regina v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50 at para 64.
55The omission of the 2015 finding that he had provided misleading testimony did not mislead the issuing justice. The prior finding was an isolated credibility concern in a past proceeding that did not result in any formal disciplinary action, conviction, or internal misconduct record. As the Supreme Court explained in Regina v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, disclosure obligations arise for “serious misconduct” that bears directly on credibility and reliability, typically where there is a formal and enduring finding such as a conviction, disciplinary ruling, or charge. Informal or historical credibility criticisms, absent formal discipline, do not fall within this category.
56Requiring disclosure of every past adverse credibility finding that did not result in a sanction would risk turning warrant applications into collateral assessments of an officer’s background. The issuing justice’s role is to determine whether the affidavit provides reasonable grounds, not to conduct a comprehensive review of the affiant’s credibility history. Given that the finding was approximately nine years old and did not lead to significant discipline, its omission cannot reasonably be said to have materially misled the issuing justice.
57To the extent that his lack of training and prior finding of providing misleading evidence ought to have been included, it can be considered at this stage. In my view, had the issuing justice been aware that Detective Constable Dhaliwal’s lack of training and the adverse credibility finding approximately nine years earlier would not have detracted from the grounds provided that an offence had been committed and that a search would afford evidence of that offence.
Amiri’s Credibility
58The defence submits that in setting out the occurrence relating to Amiri, Detective Constable Dhaliwal materially omitted and misrepresented evidence from the investigation that undermined Amiri’s credibility and his version of events. Some examples relied upon was that Detective Constable Dhaliwal knew that Amiri had a criminal record for offences of dishonesty and that investigators of the shooting had raised red flags about Amiri’s credibility. Moreover, he knew that Amiri was not cooperating with investigation and deliberately kept this information from the issuing justice. Finally, that Detective Constable Dhaliwal was not fully frank in the ITO because he omitted that Amiri initially told investigators he did not know the names of those involved.
59I do find that Detective Constable Dhaliwal neglected to include a full summary of Amiri’s account in the ITO. He was selective in including information that supported his grounds and not including others that might be seen to be favourable to the defence. When cross-examined as to these omissions, Detective Constable Dhaliwal explained that he never included a victim’s criminal record in an ITO, even if it includes crimes of dishonesty. He believed Amiri to be a victim and that it never crossed his mind to provide this information about a victim’s criminal record to the issuing justice. Detective Constable Dhaliwal claimed that he did not believe his criminal record raised any credibility concerns and that none of the omitted information undermined his belief that Amiri had been a victim. Moreover, he stated that he did not believe he needed to draw to the issuing justice’s attention anything that might have detracted from his grounds, including for example that Amiri did not suffer any injuries consistent with him being kicked a 100 times while on the ground.
60It is concerning that Detective Constable Dhaliwal did not think that he needed to draw anything that detracted from his grounds to the justice’s attention. So too was his refusal to acknowledge that a criminal record for offences of dishonesty does not raise credibility concerns. However, I see nothing to suggest that he was deliberately attempting to conceal this material evidence from the issuing justice. Detective Constable Dhaliwal was primarily summarizing investigative reports prepared by other officers, neither of which included this information relating to Amiri’s credibility. In the absence of any bad faith, the appropriate remedy at this stage is amplification by considering that Amiri had a criminal record for offences of dishonesty and was no longer cooperating with investigators.
61I am satisfied that, even if the issuing justice had been aware of the omitted information, the warrant could still have issued. The ITO contained ample evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds that Amiri had been the victim of a robbery and shooting and that Mr. Ogbomo was one of the perpetrators. Much of Amiri’s initial account was corroborated by independent evidence. Surveillance confirmed that he attended 601–510 Curran Drive, entered an apartment carrying a watch, and his movements in the hallway matched his narrative. Mr. Ogbomo was identified as residing at that address and was seen leaving with Amiri shortly before the shooting. Amiri was later found nearby without clothes, close to a shell casing. The fact that Amiri later chose not to cooperate does not detract from his initial account that he had been robbed and shot. Victims of gang-related violence often refuse to cooperate with police.
62Reasonable grounds can co-exist with exculpatory possibilities. An affiant’s belief need not be the only reasonable conclusion drawn from the evidence. To require otherwise would effectively impose the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at the warrant stage, when the applicable threshold is reasonable and probable grounds: R. v. Ilia, 2023 ONCA 75 at para. 17; R. v. Bush, 2010 ONCA 554 at para. 58. Similarly, facts relied upon in an ITO do not need to be proven or corroborated to be considered: Bush, supra at para. 61; R. v. Rocha, (2012) O.J. No. 4911 (C.A.) at paras. 22–23. Even where a complainant’s account may have frailties, the affiant is entitled to rely on that information to establish reasonable grounds: R. v. Williams, 2025 ONCA 327 at paras. 7–9.
Amiri’s “Statement” to Detective Constable Stojic
63The defence argues that the statement attributed to Amiri, as summarized in the ITO, should be excised: R. v. Downes, [2022] O.J. No. 3410 (S.C.J.). It is submitted that Detective Constable Stojic’s method of receiving, recording, and later reconstructing the information, while labelling it a “typewritten statement,” created a misleading impression for the issuing justice. The defence contends that this was not a true statement, as the officer did not record the information contemporaneously and failed to preserve the various versions of events before producing the final narrative from memory. It also notes that Amiri’s alleged identification of “Jay” on a YouTube video was not documented.
64Alternatively, the defence argues that the statement should be given no weight because of the omitted information known to Detective Constable Dhaliwal. It submits that permitting police to rely on information they know to be false or unreliable to strengthen grounds for entry would undermine public confidence in the exercise of police powers.
65I am not satisfied that the statement should be excised. I see no basis to fault the affiant for describing what Amiri told police as a “statement” rather than an after-the-fact narrative. Although it was summarized rather than recorded verbatim, this characterization would not have misled the issuing justice. What mattered was not the formality of the statement but its substance. That information was central to assessing whether reasonable grounds existed for the warrant, and as noted above, several aspects of Amiri’s account were corroborated by independent evidence.
66There is no evidence that Detective Constable Stojic omitted material information or provided anything erroneous to Detective Constable Dhaliwal. Nor is there evidence that he lied, deliberately misstated facts, or was less than full, frank, and fair in recording the statement. The statement was taken the night of the shooting, over four months before Detective Constable Dhaliwal prepared the ITO. There is no evidence to suggest that Detective Constable Stojic engaged in deceptive conduct targeted at securing search warrants against Mr. Ogbomo and thereby intentionally mislead both Detective Constable Dhaliwal and the issuing justice.
67This is not a case like Downes where the sub-affiant was found to have deliberately failed to request footage knowing there were issues with the CCTV and did not take notes of his investigative steps. The CCTV footage in that case was seminal, some of it depicting what officers believed to be drug-related activity. Since the defence was unable to impeach the officers on the lost videos, he was found to have subverted the judicial authorization process.
68Detective Constable Stojic did not breach any duty to preserve or record. Amiri refused to provide a formal statement, and given his apparent fear after being assaulted, robbed and shot at, the officer reasonably chose to engage in dialogue rather than insist on a verbatim record. The summary he prepared was sufficient to furnish Detective Constable Dhaliwal with grounds to seek a warrant for the applicant’s residence and vehicle. It was open to him to accept Detective Constable Stojic’s information from Amiri identifying his assailants; particularly since it aligned with many corroborating features of the investigation. Questions of ultimate reliability are for trial and should not be conflated with the narrow pre-trial inquiry into whether the warrant could properly have issued.
69Even if Amiri’s account was inaccurate, what matters is whether the officer had reason to believe that it was false at the time. If Detective Constable Stojic reasonably believed Amiri and accurately conveyed that information to Detective Constable Dhaliwal, then the affiant would have had no basis to doubt its veracity when seeking the warrant. On the amplified record, there is no evidence that either officer believed Amiri was lying.
Failure to Investigate Amiri
70The defence also takes issue with the fact that Detective Constable Dhaliwal did not consider Amiri’s motive to lie. Further, that the police did not investigate the following issues:
a) Amiri’s involvement with possible gang members.
b) How Amiri came to possess a $40,000 watch and was prepared to take a $10,000 loss on it.
c) The legality of Amiri’s rental car business.
d) Whether the Lamborghini taken was stolen or reported stolen by Amiri to an insurance company; and
e) Amiri’s alleged dealings with “Jay”.
71For the purpose of a Garofoli analysis, it is generally accepted that the police are to be judged on what they did, not what they could have done. The failure to take further investigative steps before seeking a warrant will not invalidate the warrant: R. v. Vu, 2011 BCCA 536, at paras. 44, 45. A failure to take investigative steps is only relevant as it relates to whether the ITO discloses sufficient grounds to authorize the warrant: R. v. Morley, 2013 BCSC 463, at paras. 21 to 22.
72Even if the police had investigated these issues, I do not agree that these additional facts materially affect the grounds in the ITO or the issuance of the warrant. For reasons set out above, irrespective of whether Amiri was engaged in criminality or did not have injuries consistent with the assault does not detract from the fact that there was ample reason to believe Amiri was the victim of a robbery and shooting and that Mr. Ogbomo was one of the perpetrators.
73Ultimately, there was confirmatory evidence that a shooting had taken place to corroborate Amiri’s account. Potential credibility concerns that may be raised at trial premised on a witness’ criminal antecedents do not detract from the affiant’s grounds to believe that Mr. Ogbomo was involved in the shooting. Any internal or external inconsistencies with Amiri’s account of the shooting such as lack of injuries or potential motive to fabricate should not be reviewed in isolation so as to undermine the officer’s overall grounds. On the totality of circumstances and information relied on by the affiant, there were sufficient grounds to support the preconditions for issuance.
The Identification Inconsistency
74The defence further argues that Detective Constable Dhaliwal failed to inform the issuing justice that surveillance footage contradicted Amiri’s identification of the applicant as “Jay.” In his statement to Detective Constable Stojic, Amiri purportedly said he first noticed “Jay” (who was later identified as Mr. Ogbomo) when entering the apartment. However, surveillance footage from November 10, 2023, shows Amiri with Mr. Ogbomo before entering the apartment
75In my view, this omission does not undermine the ample grounds to believe that Mr. Ogbomo participated in the shooting and robbery. I do not interpret Amiri’s statement as asserting that he first noticed “Jay” only upon entering the apartment. In any event, surveillance footage shows Mr. Ogbomo with Amiri when leaving the apartment shortly before the shooting. This evidence, coupled with Amiri’s account, was sufficient for the issuing justice to conclude that reasonable grounds existed that Mr. Ogbomo was involved in the shooting.
Failing to Disclose that the Investigation went Dormant
76The defence argues that Detective Constable Dhaliwal materially misled the issuing justice by failing to disclose that the investigation had been dormant for approximately four months. I disagree. The ITO made it apparent that no investigative steps occurred until the confidential source came forward with information about Mr. Ogbomo. Any potential deficiency arising from the gap in time was cured by the current and detailed information provided by the source, which formed the basis for the warrant
Exaggeration of Evidence
77In the ITO, Detective Constable Dhaliwal stated that Jay and the unknown male had shot at Amiri and “narrowly missed” hitting him. Detective Constable Dhaliwal refused to concede that he used exaggerated language and maintained that “narrowly missed” would be accurate even if the person missed by thirty yards.
78Detective Constable Dhaliwal’s refusal to acknowledge that the term “narrowly missed” could encompass such a significant distance is troubling. His unwillingness to concede even this obvious point raises serious questions about his credibility and ability to acknowledge any mistakes. That said, I am not persuaded that the use of the phrase “narrowly missed” in the ITO amounted to an exaggeration by the affiant. The wording was drawn directly from Constable Simpson’s investigative report, which Officer Dhaliwal was entitled to rely upon. There is no evidence that he embellished or misrepresented the underlying facts.
79Even if the phrase “narrowly missed” could be considered imprecise, it would not have affected the issuing justice’s assessment of reasonable grounds. The critical fact was that shots were fired at or toward Amiri during the incident, which was corroborated by other evidence in the ITO. Whether the bullets missed by inches or by a greater distance does not alter the nature of the offence or the grounds for the warrant.
Confidential Source Information
80It is well established that, where the ITO is based on CS information, the issuing justice must consider whether the information in support of the warrant is compelling, credible and corroborated. In assessing the extent to which the information provided by the source meets the Debot criteria, the totality of the circumstances must be considered. No one factor is determinative, and weaknesses in one area may be compensated for by strength in the others.
81While information received from a confidential informant may be relied upon to establish reasonable grounds to obtain a search warrant, a confidential informant does not have “to shoulder the entire burden” of establishing a reasonably grounded belief that evidence will be found in the place proposed to be searched: Prosser, at paras. 13 and 17.
82In this case, the information provided about Mr. Ogbomo was specific and detailed. The CS provided firsthand information that they had seen Mr. Ogbomo with a firearm shortly before providing information to the police. The redacted materials show that the issuing justice was provided with details that would have satisfied him that the particulars were sufficiently recent to be reliable. This information was corroborated to the extent that Mr. Ogbomo resided at a condominium in Mississauga. Further, the information was credible. The CS did not provide information that was contradicted or otherwise detracted from their credibility. They have a proven track record of providing reliable information to the police that has resulted in multiple seizures of firearms and drugs. The issuing justice was advised of their motivation and issues affecting credibility.
83I do not accept the defence submission that Detective Constable Dhaliwal materially misled the issuing justice by cutting and pasting the confidential source’s information from an email provided by the handler without expressly stating that fact or conducting an independent background investigation into the handler. The affiant was entitled to rely on information provided by the handler, who was responsible for managing the source and assessing their reliability. There is no evidence that Detective Constable Dhaliwal fabricated or altered the content of the email or that the information was inaccurate. The mere fact that the wording was reproduced verbatim does not detract from its reliability or mislead the issuing justice.
84I do not accept the defence assertion that the affiant should have investigated unsubstantiated rumours about the handler. Vague and unverified allegations do not impose a duty on the affiant to conduct collateral inquiries, nor do they undermine the reliability of information provided. Without some detail of what the rumour related to, it would be speculative to suggest that inquiries might have uncovered something nefarious. What matters is whether the information in the ITO, taken as a whole, provided reasonable grounds for the warrant. On this record, the confidential source’s information was corroborated by other evidence and was properly included. The way it was transcribed does not affect the integrity of the grounds.
85The fact that the CS identified Mr. Ogbomo as being “Melly” does not detract from their credibility or the basis of Amiri’s identification of Mr. Ogbomo as being one of the shooters. It is not uncommon for people to have multiple nicknames and in my view, it does not undermine the affiant’s belief that the source and Amiri were referring to the same person. The video surveillance from November 10, 2023 clearly shows Amiri with Mr. Ogbomo and the CS positively identified Mr. Ogbomo as “Melly”.
86The defence argues that the use of a single photo to confirm the identity of “Melly” rendered the identification unreliable, particularly because the ITO did not include details about the source’s relationship with Melly or the length of time they had known each other. It is further submitted that Detective Constable Dhaliwal should have made additional inquiries before relying on this identification. While I do not condone the use of a single photo as a best practice to establish identification, its use in this case does not undermine the reliability of the information provided by the confidential source. The photo was not used to induce the source to identify Mr. Ogbomo; rather, it served as a tool to confirm that the person the source had been referring to was indeed Mr. Ogbomo.
87The identification was not the sole basis for the warrant. It was part of a broader evidentiary picture that included compelling and corroborated information from the source and other independent evidence. The absence of details about the source’s relationship with “Melly” does not materially detract from the reliability of the grounds presented in the ITO
88I am not persuaded that the confidential source’s reference to “Melly” residing in a condominium with Tyrique Daley, while police records listed Mr. Daley’s address in Whitby, amounts to a material inconsistency undermining reliability. A registered address does not preclude someone from living elsewhere. It is entirely plausible that Mr. Daley maintained an official address in Whitby while residing with Mr. Ogbomo in Mississauga. More importantly, this discrepancy does not affect the core information that Mr. Ogbomo was living at the condominium, a fact confirmed by police surveillance two days before the warrant was sought.
Based on the Amplified Record Could the Warrant have Issued?
89It bears repeating that an ITO is not required to establish proof of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Returning to the fundamental test I must apply as a reviewing justice, the ITO has established a credibly based probability upon which an issuing justice could conclude that Mr. Ogbomo was involved in the robbery and shooting and that the authorization would afford evidence of these crimes. I am satisfied that the core substance of the ITO could support the issuance of the warrant.
90The ITO’s central thread is evidence linking Mr. Ogbomo to Amiri’s shooting. Amiri visited Mr. Ogbomo’s residence with a watch, he met with him and they were later seen leaving together. Shortly afterward, Amiri was shot and found unclothed near a shell casing. His phone was recovered after being discarded from a vehicle associated with Mr. Ogbomo. Finally, Amiri identified Mr. Ogbomo, a person he knew as “Jay”, as being involved. Despite potential credibility issues with Amiri, these facts support a reasonable inference that Mr. Ogbomo participated in the robbery and shooting, an inference the issuing justice could properly draw from the amplified record and the ITO. Additionally, the confidential source’s information addressed concerns about the four-month investigative gap and reinforced the reliability of the grounds and the likelihood that evidence would be found at the search location.
Residual Discretion to Set Aside the Warrant
91Mr. Ogbomo’s final attack rests on my residual discretion to invalidate the authorization where “the police conduct has subverted the pre-authorization process through deliberate non-disclosure, bad faith, deliberate deception, fraudulent misrepresentation or the like”. Omissions, mischaracterizations, or other errors in an affidavit could be so egregious as to bolster a finding of intentionality or incompetence The standard the Applicant must meet to invoke this residual discretion is high. Subversion is characterized by “undermining, corrupting, weakening, destroying or disrupting a system or process” and has been compared to conduct that amounts to an abuse of process: Paryniuk, at paras 62-69.
92I am troubled by aspects of Detective Dhaliwal’s conduct in this case. At times, he was evasive in cross-examination and appeared not to fully appreciate the serious responsibility placed on an affiant seeking to interfere with an individual’s privacy rights. His approach to obtaining the warrant was, at times, careless. However, I cannot agree that Detective Constable Dhaliwal’s conduct in this case amounts to the subversion described in Paryniuk.
93Detective Constable Dhaliwal’s lack of training in drafting ITOs is alarming, as is his careless approach of self-training by reviewing other warrants without studying relevant case law or verifying whether those warrants had been quashed. It is equally concerning that the Toronto Police Service assigned him this task without formal training. However, my role is not to assess the propriety of that decision. Rather, it is to determine whether, on the amplified record, there was a basis for the issuing justice to grant the warrant, or whether the conduct was so egregious that it undermined the process and requires the warrant to be quashed.
94I cannot conclude that some of the misstatements and omissions set out above were anything more than the product of Detective Constable Dhaliwal’s lack of training. They were not deliberate or fraudulent. I do not believe that he turned his mind to misleading the issuing justice. Respectfully, my impression is that Detective Constable Dhaliwal did not fully understand his duties and responsibilities. Detective Constable Dhaliwal did not consciously frame the allegations against Mr. Ogbomo to create a false narrative; rather, he copied and pasted from investigative reports prepared by other officers without considering their framing. His decision not to include Amiri’s criminal record reflected his general practice.
95These comments should not be taken as excusing the affiant’s conduct or suggesting that such an approach is acceptable. Institutionally, police must ensure that officers applying for investigative orders are properly trained, and individually, officers must ensure that nothing in their applications misleads the authorizing justice. Although it is tempting to send a message that carelessness will not be tolerated, that is not the Court’s role here. Detective Constable Dhaliwal was careless, but I do not find that his actions were intentionally misleading or amounted to a subversion of the prior authorization process.
96The affiant’s initial insistence that he prepared the entire ITO himself, later conceding that he cut and pasted the handler’s email, does not amount to the kind of subversion contemplated in Paryniuk. First, Detective Constable Dhaliwal did not mislead the issuing justice into believing he drafted the ITO entirely on his own. The summary of CS information does not suggest he had direct involvement with the CS; it clearly reads as a summary of information provided by the CS. I do not believe Detective Constable Dhaliwal intended to mislead the Court when he initially agreed he had drafted the ITO himself. I understood him to mean that he authored everything outside the investigative reports. To the extent this was deceptive, it did not undermine either the prior authorization process or the review process. The ITO makes clear that he relied primarily on other officers’ reports, and when asked about the CS information, he immediately acknowledged copying from the handler’s email. Whether this was deceptive or not, it did not affect the validity of the warrant or the review process. It is not the Court’s role during warrant review to punish an affiant for incorrect testimony on an immaterial issue.
97Finally, the fact that the affiant engaged in extensive cutting and pasting does not justify setting aside the warrant. Incorporating information from other officers’ reports into an ITO is standard practice. Copying and pasting, on its own, does not subvert the process. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the reports relied upon by Detective Constable Dhaliwal were inherently problematic or that reliance on them undermined the reliability of the warrant.
Conclusion
98I am satisfied that the record when amplified on review provides a basis on which the warrant could have issued. Further, despite my concerns about Detective Constable Dhaliwal’s conduct, he did not subvert the prior authorization process. Mr. Ogbomo has therefore failed to establish that the warrant should be set aside.
99In light of my findings, it is not necessary to consider the exclusionary inquiry under s. 24(2).
100The application is dismissed.
Released: January 14, 2026
Signed: Justice Seth Weinstein