Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20230619 Docket: C70121

Judges: Lauwers, Pardu and Benotto JJ.A.

Between: His Majesty the King, Respondent and Leonidas Economopoulos, Appellant

Counsel: Gerald Chan and Olivia Eng, for the appellant Tom Lemon and Sarah Malik, for the respondent

Heard: June 15, 2023

On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Jonathan George of the Superior Court of Justice on July 23, 2021.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant was convicted of drug offences and possession of the proceeds of crime. He submits that the affidavit sworn to obtain the search warrant of his home and car was insufficient to establish a credibly-based probability that he was the person trafficking in drugs, or that evidence was likely to be found in a car or a residence. He appeals from the conviction that followed the trial judge’s refusal to exclude the evidence.

[2] The affidavit laid out a strong case to support the allegation that Mr. Nguyen was trafficking in drugs and that another person in Toronto was his supplier. The appellant submits that the evidence set out in the affidavit to suggest that he was that supplier had many weaknesses. The trial judge noted that these deficiencies might provide fodder for fruitful cross examination, were this evidence offered at trial, but that, on the whole, the affidavit was sufficient to permit the issuing justice to conclude that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the offence had been committed and that evidence of that offence would be found at the specified time and place of the search. The trial judge took pains to review, in detail, all of the deficiencies pointed to by the appellant.

[3] His decision is owed deference, and we agree with it. As so memorably stated by Lebel J. in R. v. Araujo, 2000 SCC 65, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992, in the context of affidavits to obtain wiretaps:

Looking at matters practically in order to learn from this case for the future, what kind of affidavit should the police submit in order to seek permission to use wiretapping? The legal obligation on anyone seeking an ex parte authorization is full and frank disclosure of material facts …. So long as the affidavit meets the requisite legal norm, there is no need for it to be as lengthy as À la recherche du temps perdu, as lively as the Kama Sutra, or as detailed as an automotive repair manual. All that it must do is set out the facts fully and frankly for the authorizing judge in order that he or she can make an assessment of whether these rise to the standard required in the legal test for the authorization. Ideally, an affidavit should be not only full and frank but also clear and concise. It need not include every minute detail of the police investigation over a number of months and even of years. [Citations omitted.]

[4] This affidavit meets that test.

[5] Nor do we accept the argument that the trial judge improperly used evidence, elicited in cross examination of the affiant and sub-affiants, to amplify the grounds for identification of the appellant. The trial judge accurately stated the legal principles governing his review and the limits upon amplification evidence. He considered the evidence elicited on cross examination to explain his rejection of the attack on the credibility and reliability of the officers’ evidence.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“G. Pardu J.A.”

“M.L.Benotto J.A.”