COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Moran, 2013 ONCA 342

DATE: 20130524

DOCKET: C54689

Weiler, Blair and Strathy JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Elidio Moran

Appellant

Erec Rolfe, for the appellant

Howard Piafsky, for the respondent

Heard: May 23, 2013

On appeal from the conviction entered on April 7, 2011 by Justice Mark L. Edwards of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The overarching issue on this appeal is whether the information to obtain contained sufficient information so that a warrant could issue. In support of his position that it did not, the appellant makes two submissions: (1) the information from the Confidential Informants (CIs) was not sufficiently reliable because there was insufficient corroboration for the information of the CIs; and (2) he submits that the issuing judge did not turn his mind to whether some of the information should be excised from the ITO because the reliability of information from CI “A” is exaggerated. There is nothing to indicate that this is direct information from the CI as opposed to the opinion evidence of the affiant.

[2] We disagree that the information from the CIs was not sufficiently reliable. Even if, as the appellant submits, the very limited information from CI “A” is excised, and the initial information from CI “B” is insufficient, standing alone, to issue the ITO, the ITO considered as a whole was sufficient. Based on the information from the CIs, the police confirmed the existence of the Kirby residence, the buzz number and the fact that a person named Jamal Moran had been in a car with a known drug dealer. Thus, there was some independent corroboration of the CIs’ information in terms of the location of the transaction and Jamal’s involvement in the drug culture. In December 2009, CI “C” advised of information that a source had just purchased crack cocaine from Jamal who visits a female at the apartment who goes by the name of Kirby. He gave the correct buzz number of the apartment on Fittons Road and the appellant rightly concedes this is some corroboration. Also, in December, CI “B”, who was a known and trusted source had just spoken to Kirby, directly, and asked if Jamal Moran was there. When Kirby answered “Yes”, CI “B” then told Kirby that they wanted to “order up”, meaning they were ordering cocaine. Kirby told CI “B” that it wasn’t a problem. In addition, CI “D” said that he had purchased crack from Jamal in the past. Considered as a whole the information from the CIs provided a basis on which a warrant could issue.

[3] In light of our holding we need not address the appellant’s arguments respecting s. 8 and s. 24(2). The appeal is dismissed.