Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Region of Durham: 998 14 13794 & 998 14 25097 & 998 14 25112

Date: 2015-03-19

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Jaime Bennett, Kristy Bray, Marshall Brown, Ronald Burgess, Shayeon Clarke, Jerome Dorsey, Brandon Lafleur, Randy Laughlin, Darnell Leblanc, Steven MacKean, and Ksaundra MacLean.

Before: Justice J. De Filippis

Heard on: March 2, 2015

Reasons for Ruling on Dawson Motion released on: March 19, 2015

Counsel

For the Crown: Mr. D Wilson

For Jaime Bennett: Ms. S. Israel

For Kristy Bray: Mr. K. Mitchell-Gill

For Marshall Brown: Mr. F. Davoudi

For Ronald Burgess: Mr. W. Jaksa

For Shayeon Clarke: Mr. T. Smith

For Jerome Dorsey: Mr. A. Sholtz

For Brandon Lafleur: Mr. T. Green

For Randy Laughlin: Mr. P. Affleck

For Darnell Leblanc: Mr. M. McCrae

For Steven MacKean: Mr. G. Hamilton

For Ksaundra MacLean: Ms. S. Samet

Reasons for Ruling

De Filippis, J.:

Introduction

[1] Over a period of seven months, from October 2013 to April 2014, the Durham Regional Police Service conducted an investigation known as "Project Wheeler". That investigation relied on several judicial warrants, including two wiretap authorizations. As a result, 21 individuals were arrested on an Information containing 63 drug and firearm charges. The Local Administrative Judge assigned me to case manage this matter. After a series of judicial pre-trial meetings, several defendants were severed to be dealt with separately and the remainder separated into two groups and set down for hearings. On the consent of counsel, I am the presiding judge in both hearings. The prosecution of the first group has been resolved. This ruling pertains to the second group.

[2] Before proceeding further, I take this opportunity to thank all counsel, including a representative of Legal Aid Ontario, for their assistance to me in case managing the Project Wheeler matter. The efforts of these lawyers have contributed to fair and expeditious proceedings.[1]

[3] This preliminary hearing is scheduled for two weeks, commencing on May 4, 2015. The Applicants seek leave to cross-examine the affiant who deposed to the affidavit in support of the wiretap authorization granted by Justice McMahon, of the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, on January 14, 2014 (and renewed on March 7, 2014). The Applicants filed written submissions justifying such cross-examination. This was followed by a detailed written reply by the Respondent. I reviewed this material as well as the affidavit in question. I also have the benefit of oral submissions. At that time, Mr. Sholtz, speaking on behalf of the Applicants, narrowed the requested areas of cross-examination, having regard to the Respondent's written reply.

[4] I have decided to dismiss the application. These are my reasons.

Nature of the Application

[5] This is a "Dawson Motion" brought in aid of a potential – and future - "Garofoli Motion". The Applicants seek leave to cross-examine about issues that have no relevance to the statutory purpose of a preliminary inquiry. Accordingly, it will be helpful to begin with a definition of certain basic terms.

[6] A Garofoli Motion is a challenge to a search warrant or wiretap authorization, pursuant to section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also describes an application, at trial, to cross-examine an affiant in an attempt to undermine the grounds relied upon to obtain the judicial order in question. A justice presiding at a preliminary hearing is not a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of granting Charter relief. Nevertheless, a defendant may seek leave to cross-examine an affiant at the preliminary hearing to establish a basis for the Charter application at trial. This is known as a Dawson Motion.

[7] Most challenges to the judicial orders address the sufficiency of the information set out in the Information to Obtain (ITO) or affidavit in support. This is known as an attack on facial validity. In such cases, the reviewing judge must determine whether there is a basis upon which the authorizing judge could be satisfied that the preconditions for the granting of the authorization existed. In order to resolve such challenges it is generally enough to examine the relevant documents and to assess their sufficiency on their face. Cross-examination of an affiant is relevant only with respect to sub-facial validity. Thus, if it is shown that statements by the affiant in the ITO or affidavit may not be accurate or pertinent information that could have affected issuance of the order was omitted, cross-examination will be relevant.

Legal Principles

[8] The preconditions for an authorization to intercept private communications are set out in section 186 of the Criminal Code:

(1) An authorization under this section may be given if the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied

(a) that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so; and

(b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.

[9] In R. v. Finlay (1985), 52 O.R. (2d) 632 (OCA), Justice Martin held that the statutory precondition "best interests of the administration of justice" required the authorizing Justice to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the specified offence has been or is being committed, and that evidence of the offence will be obtained by the interception sought. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed this in R. v. Duarte, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30. In addition, the applicant must meet the requirements of para. (b) of s.178.13(1) with respect to other investigative procedures. The Supreme Court described the procedure to challenge such judicial orders in R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421.

[10] Judicial orders are presumptively valid. A sub-facial challenge to a search warrant or wiretap authorization attacks the underlying reliability of the order. The basis upon which the order may be quashed is set out in Garofoli, at paragraph 56:

The reviewing judge does not substitute his or her view for that of the authorizing judge. If, based on the record which was before the authorizing judge as amplified on the review, the reviewing judge concludes that the authorizing judge could have granted the authorization, then he or she should not interfere. In this process, the existence of fraud, non-disclosure, misleading evidence and new evidence are all relevant, but, rather than being a prerequisite to review, their sole impact is to determine whether there continues to be any basis for the decision of the authorizing judge.

[11] The reviewing judge will excise false, misleading or erroneous information from the affidavit: R. v. Ebanks, 2009 ONCA 851, 249 C.C.C. (3d) 29 at para. 28. Where the erroneous information is due to simple error, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the issuing justice, amplification may be permitted to correct these technical or minor mistakes. After excising any erroneous facts and/or amplifying the record the reviewing judge must determine if there continues to be reliable information upon which the issuing judge could have granted the authorization. The Supreme Court explained in R. v. Araujo, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992 that, "In looking for reliable information on which the authorizing judge could have granted the authorization, the question is simply whether there was at least some evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the authorization could have issued."

[12] In challenging a search warrant or wiretap authorization, there is no right to cross-examine the affiant. In Garofoli, the court held, at paragraphs 88-89:

Leave must be obtained to cross-examine. The granting of leave must be left to the exercise of the discretion of the trial judge. Leave should be granted when the trial judge is satisfied that cross-examination is necessary to enable the accused to make full answer and defence. A basis must be shown by the accused for the view that the cross-examination will elicit testimony tending to discredit the existence of one of the preconditions to the authorization, as for example the existence of reasonable and probable grounds.

When permitted, the cross-examination should be limited by the trial judge to questions that are directed to establish that there was no basis upon which the authorization could have been granted.

[13] Although a judge considering an application for leave to cross-examine does not at that stage determine the ultimate Garofoli issue, the latter informs the former. The limited role of the reviewing judge means there is no point in permitting cross-examination if it is unlikely to affect the admissibility of the evidence. Thus, leave to cross-examine may be denied even if it would reveal factual inaccuracies, material omissions, or overstatement. In R. v. Cook, [2008] O.J. No. 4764 (Sup. Ct.), Justice Hill noted that:

(9) recognizing that leave to cross-examine ought not to be given where there is no reasonable likelihood that it will impact on the admissibility of the evidence…it is necessary to examine the nature of the alleged errors…in light of the affidavit as a whole to determine whether they are relevant to a central or foundational issue underlying the existence of reasonable grounds.

[14] Non-disclosure can be a basis for cross-examination of an affiant. In this regard, it is helpful to recall what Justice Galligan (then a trial judge) had to say about the affiant's duty to make full, fair, and frank disclosure in R. v. Ho, [1987] O.J. No. 925:

. . . . I think it worth saying that the police in preparing affidavits in support of the applications for wiretap authorizations have to be somewhat selective. They cannot put into it their whole investigation. To disclose everything is not practically feasible, and in the area of opening the packet it may be inimical to the public interest.

In my opinion what they must do is give sufficient highlights of the investigation . . . much of the investigation need not be disclosed, and the bare fact of some non-disclosure cannot be grounds for setting aside the authorization. It is only non-disclosure of a matter material to the judicial decision that could satisfy setting aside the authorization.

[15] The foregoing observations should not be seen to place an undue burden on the Applicants. Cross-examination should be permitted where there is a reasonable likelihood that it would elicit evidence of probative value to reviewing judge: R. v. Williams, [2003] O.J. No. 5122 (OCA). In this regard, the law does not require an Applicant to present a prima facie case in support his/her assertions or make a substantial preliminary showing of fraud or recklessness on the part of the affiant. However, an Applicant must do more than merely suggest inconsistencies and make conclusory statements. The Applicant must point to the evidentiary basis to justify cross-examination: R. v. Ambrose, [1994] O.J. No. 1457 (OCA). This foundation can be demonstrated on the face of the affidavit, without additional extrinsic evidence. However, as a practical matter, this may not suffice because if there are deficiencies on the face of the affidavit, they will speak for themselves and do not require cross-examination. In any event, the requirement for an adequate evidentiary record prevents "fishing expeditions".

[16] Leave may also be granted to cross-examine "sub-affiants", that is, those who provided information to the affiant. These are usually other police officers. [2] It may be that the test for such cross-examination is higher; in R. v. Durette, [1992] O.J. No. 1044 at paragraph 101, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the Applicant must articulate "the utility of cross-examining" the sub-affiants.

[17] In Garofoli, the issue of cross-examination of the affiant arose in the trial context. The Supreme Court of Canada responded to that context and said nothing about what rules apply at a preliminary hearing. The Court of Appeal for Ontario was called upon to consider that question in R. v. Dawson, [1998] O.J. No. 1039 and held that the same procedure applied:

12 The reasons in Garofoli provided a format for legislated amendments to s. 187 of the Code in 1993. Accordingly that section now lays down the procedure for opening the packet and making its contents available. Significantly, for present purposes, a provincial court judge may now open the packet, and provide a copy of the contents to the accused after it has been edited by the Crown; previously that role was reserved for a superior court judge. Given the acknowledged right of the accused to the contents of the packet, subject to that editing, it is natural to expect that applications will be made at an early date, and before a provincial court judge. Thus, any exclusive function that the trial judge may have been expected to have in respect of opening the packet and editing its contents has been overrun by events. In the present case, the packet had been opened prior to the preliminary hearing and the appellants were, in effect, seeking to complete their discovery at the preliminary hearing.

13 I am, therefore, not persuaded by the respondent that Garofoli is determinative of the issue before this court….. Nor can I accept the Crown's argument based upon R. v. Mills, 26 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (S.C.C.), to the effect that the provincial court is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Charter and thus should not be entertaining cross-examination directed to a breach of the Charter. It is now commonplace to have examinations of witnesses at preliminary hearings on all aspects of potential Charter violations. It is only the requirement for leave, as enunciated in Garofoli, that may distinguish wiretap authorizations from, for instance, the facts surrounding an alleged illegal arrest or the granting of the right to counsel.

19 My conclusion is that, given the 1993 amendments to s. 187 of the Code, there is no reason that the granting of leave to cross-examine should be the preserve of the trial judge. Why should legitimate discovery be delayed? Why should a provincial court judge not be permitted to apply a very simple test to assure against prolixity, irrelevance, and well-known policy concerns? I can see none and s. 540(1)(a) is a strong directive to that end. This should not be considered as a usurpation of the trial judge's function. Cross-examination will disclose facts to the accused, but they will only become admissible at trial by leave of the trial judge.

Analysis

[18] The Applicants seek leave to cross-examine the affiant about an affidavit dated January 12, 2014, filed in support of a wiretap authorization. The proposed cross-examination relates to two distinct areas; (1) a claim about possession of firearms and (2) several statements that observations about specified meetings are "indicative of drug trafficking".

[19] The disputed firearm claim is contained in sub-paragraph 90(d) of the affidavit and relates to two of the three confidential human sources (CHS) relied upon by the affiant. It provides as follows:

CHS-2 and CHS-3 both provide information that corroborate each other. The following is a summary of the information provided by both informants that corroborate each other: a. Harley, Jerry and Frodo are involved in drug trafficking.

b. They reside at 86 Mary Street, Apartment 1, Lindsay.

c. Harley and Frodo share one room and Jerry has his own room.

d. Both CHS-2 and CHS-3 have provided information that there are firearms associated to these people.

[20] The Applicants submit that sub-paragraph 90(d) is inaccurate because CHS-3 "is giving third hand information from the person known as Harley Love that is not consistent with her having guns that are registered…." This submission rests on a misunderstanding. The sub-paragraph in question must be read along with the affiant's statement in paragraph 81:

On November 26, 2013 I conducted a check on the Canadian Firearms Registry. As a result of this check I have learned that Harley Love, born May 23, 1990, has a valid firearms licence. There are no firearms registered to Love as the registry of firearms no longer exists.

[21] When read together these paragraphs make it clear that the affiant could not independently confirm the information received by CHS-2 and CHS-3. As such, there is no inconsistency. More to the point, the affiant never claims such confirmation. His assertion is that the two confidential human sources corroborate each other. Cross-examination on this point could not undermine the claim made.

[22] The second area of concern raised by the Applicants is the opinion given by the affiant that actions attributed to certain targets through the observations made by surveillance officers about named targets is "indicative of drug trafficking", as set out in paragraphs 55(h), 103, 111, 112, 157, 178, and 185-86. In written submissions, the Applicants argue that these opinions amount to "sweeping generalization[s] which is included to mislead the issuing Justice by making it look like the person(s) under surveillance are conducting drug transactions and attempting to hide it." In oral submissions this argument was refined: It is said that the affiant engaged in circular reasoning by asserting that in his experience certain acts are indicative of drug trafficking, noting that the confidential human sources report the targets are involved in drug dealing, and then concluding that what the surveillance officers observed must be drug trafficking. I note, as do the Applicants, that none of the targets were seen, during surveillance, to actually exchange drugs.

[23] It is not necessary to reproduce all the impugned paragraphs. I will deal with paragraphs 185-86 separately. Paragraph 103 reflects the remaining ones and the opinions expressed in that paragraph, as well as in paragraph 112, best illustrate the Applicant's concerns. A consideration of them shows why leave to cross examine should not be granted. In this regard, the context is also important. The affidavit in this matter is 101 pages in length. In its 356 paragraphs, the affiant describes, among other things, the information received from the three informants, the results of a variety of judicial warrants, and observations made by surveillance officers over several months. This is linked to the affiant's opinions based on his experience and training.

[24] Paragraphs 103 provides as follows (the headings and emphasis are as set out in the original affidavit):

Surveillance – September 26, 2013

103. On September 26, 2013, members of the Durham Regional Police Gun and Gang Enforcement Unit conducted surveillance. On this date Detective Constable Palmer was the central note taker. I have spoken to Palmer and I have read his notes. The following is a summary of the relevant observations.

a. Surveillance began at 48 Tams Drive, Ajax.

48 Tams Drive, Ajax was identified as the original residence for Christopher Bell and Courtney Elawar. Through this investigation bell and Elawar were observed moving out of this residence and moving into 83 Gillett Drive, Ajax. This is detailed below in this affidavit.

b. The surveillance team observed a motor vehicle; being the Silver Acura RDX bearing Ontario License Plate BPSP548, arrive at the residence. Christopher Bell was observed exiting from the passenger seat, while a female, who the surveillance team believed to be Courtney Elawar, was observed exiting from the driver's seat. Two young children were also observed exiting this vehicle. They all entered the residence.

I have review a PARIS check for the motor vehicle bearing Ontario license plate BPSP548. This license plate is attached to a 2009 silver Acura RDX, with the registered owner being Courtney Elawar of 48 Tams Drive, Ajax.

c. Bell was observed leaving the residence in the silver Acura RDX. The Acura RDX was observed parked on the road in front of 90 Tams Drive, however, Bell was not observed in the vehicle. After approximately seven (7) minutes Bell was observed returning to the residence in the Acura.

d. A male black was observed exiting the residence and attending to a motor vehicle, which was waiting on the road. This vehicle was a grey Acura bearing Ontario License plate BRDP907. A female white was observed in the driver seat.

e. This male black was observed at the vehicle and then was observed returning to the residence. After two minutes this same black male exited the residence and attended to the driver side of the vehicle. After a short period of time, both the black male and the female white from this vehicle entered the residence together. After approximately twelve (12) minutes this female was observed exiting the residence and leaving the area in her vehicle.

I have reviewed a PARIS check for the motor vehicle bearing Ontario License plate BRDP907. This license plate is attached to a 2008 grey Acura ATL, with a registered owner being Karina Vardy of 68 Cross Road, Bancroft. Karina Vardy is proposed as another known person, in paragraph 3.

f. A male black, with cornrows, was observed attending the residence in a Taxi cab.

g. Two black males were observed exiting the residence, one with cornrows. These two males entered a motor vehicle, which was parked on the road in front of the residence. This motor vehicle had a British Columbia license plate 846LNN.

I have reviewed a PARIS check for the motor vehicle bearing British Columbia license plate 846LNN. This license plate is attached to a 1997 Ford Thunderbird with a registered owner being Sophia Koehler of 67601 Jason Road, Chilliwack, B.C. This Ford Thunderbird is the motor vehicle that Dorsey was observed driving on a number of occasions during surveillance.

h. The male with the cornrows was identified as Tesean Phipps.

I was a member of the surveillance team on this date. I have previously met Tesean Phipps through the course of my duties as a Police Officer. I am the person who identified PHIPPS on this date.

i. Bell and Elawar were observed exiting the residence and speaking to Phipps and the other male in the motor vehicle.

j. Bell and Elawar were then observed leaving the area in their Acura RDX, with a child.

k. Surveillance was maintained on Bell and Elawar; however, after a period of time they were misplaced.

l. The surveillance team then returned to 48 Tams Drive, Ajax.

m. A black Infinity was observed pulling into the driveway of 48 Tams. After approximately nineteen (19) minutes this vehicle left the residence.

n. A white Lincoln was observed attending the residence. After two (2) minutes this vehicle left the residence. Surveillance was maintained on this motor vehicle. A female white was observed in the driver seat and a male black was observed in the passenger seat. This vehicle was followed to 167 Angier Crescent, Ajax.

o. The surveillance team returned to 48 Tams Drive, Ajax.

p. Bell and Elawar, with child, were observed returning to the residence in the silver Acrua RDX. After a short period of time, Bell and Elawar were observed exiting the residence and leaving in the Acura RDX; Elawar was the driver.

q. Surveillance was maintained on Bell and Elawar.

r. They travelled to a plaza located on the south/east side of Salem Road and Achilles Road in Ajax. At this location the motor vehicle was parked in behind the Sgt. Peppers restaurant.

I was a member of the surveillance team on this date. I know that the area where the motor vehicle parked was isolated and dark. It was very difficult to monitor any activity occurring behind this plaza.

s. The surveillance team was able to observe Bell walking with an unknown person behind the plaza.

t. Bell was observed re-entering the Acura, while this person was observed walking away. This interaction took place over a period of five (5) minutes.

u. From this location Bell and Elawar returned to 48 Tams Drive. Surveillance was then discontinued.

I have been involved in numerous drug related investigations, including but not limited to: conducting surveillance on drug traffickers and observing drug transactions: undercover drug operations, acting as the undercover operator; undercover handler and cover officer' the wiretap affiant and the wire room monitor. I have also spoken to a number of confidential human sources in relation to drug activity and about drug traffickers. Through this on the job experience and through form training that I have received I have become familiar with the distribution methods of controlled substances. I have observed and I have been a part of a number of drug transactions and I am able to recognize activity that is consistent with drug trafficking. Drug transactions are prearranged meetings taking place at various locations and times; however, they are often quick meetings. Furthermore it is common to see either the customer or both the supplier and the customer to travel a distance to meet with each other, and then only meet for a relatively short period of time. These meetings often occur in a public setting. At times, depending on the quantify of drugs being exchanged and the relationship between the people the meetings may last for a longer period of time, these types of meetings generally take place in a residence or out of the public view. Although these meetings are longer than the meetings in a public setting they are still short in duration relative to the distance that a person may travel to conduct the meeting.

Throughout this affidavit I will speak about meetings that have occurred during surveillance which I believe are drug transactions. I base this belief on my experience, as detailed above, as well as the information that I have been provided by the surveillance team.

Although no transactions were observed, I believe that during surveillance on this date activity which is indicative of drug trafficking was observed. Two motor vehicles were observed attending the residence and both stayed for a short duration of time. Bell was also observed to be involved in the clandestine meeting behind Sgt. Peppers Restaurant. The meeting behind Sgt. Peppers appeared to be prearranged and lasted for a short duration of time. Also the location of the meeting was in an isolated and dark location. I believe that this meeting was indicative of drug trafficking.

[25] Paragraph 112 follows the same format as paragraph 103. It deals with surveillance on October 17, 2013. After setting out the relevant observations made known to him and relied upon, the affiant gives this opinion:

Although there was no exchange observed I believe that the meeting that Dorsey had at the Harwood plaza was indicative of drug trafficking. Jerome Dorsey was observed with a group of people. Dorsey was then observed separating himself from the group to meet with a motor vehicle. The meeting lasted for a short duration of time and then Dorsey returned to the group. I believe that this was a pre-arranged meeting and that Dorsey separated himself in order to meet with the person in order to keep the meeting secluded from the group he was with.

I also believe that the vehicle that attended 83 Gillett was indicative of drug trafficking. At this time a male from the motor vehicle was observed giving something to Graham. Graham then proceeded to give this item to Dorsey and then bell was observed giving something to this unknown male in the vehicle. This interaction lasted for a short duration of time and then the male left the area. I believe that this was indicative of a drug transaction. I believe this shows that Bell, Dorsey and Graham were all working in concert for the purpose of drug trafficking.

[26] As I have explained, leave may be granted if a basis is shown by the Applicant that cross-examination will elicit testimony tending to discredit the existence of one of the preconditions for granting the wiretap authorization. This test will be met, for example, if there is threshold basis to believe the affiant misstated his knowledge or belief or relied upon information that he knew or ought to have known was unreliable.

[27] I am not persuaded that leave should be granted in this case. The Applicants have not demonstrated how the proposed cross-examination might undermine any of the preconditions to the authorization. Extrinsic evidence was not called. Also, on the record before me, there is nothing to show fraud or the failure to make full, fair and frank disclosure.

[28] The following matters are clearly delineated in the affidavit: The affiant's experience and training; the identified factors, derived from this background, that suggest drug dealing; the observations and information received about the targets in question; and his opinion that the conduct of those targets is indicative of drug trafficking. This form and content presents the authorizing judge with the foundation for each opinion and illustrates the reasoning process leading to it. It was for that judge to decide if this information is credible and reliable. If called upon to do so, it will be for a reviewing judge to determine if there is a reasonable basis for that decision. The allegations of "sweeping generalizations" and "circular reasoning" may be relevant to the determination whether the authorizing judge could have granted the order. However, in the present circumstances, cross examination is not relevant to this attack on facial validity.

[29] Paragraphs 185 and 186 provide as follows:

Summary of Grounds for Jerome Dorsey

185. Information has been received from Confidential Human Sources that Jerome Dorsey is involved in drug trafficking. Further that Dorsey is supplied cocaine by Sean Noseworthy. Some of the information provided by the Confidential Human Source has been corroborated.

186. The Durham Regional Police Gun and Gang Enforcement Unit commenced an investigation on Jerome Dorsey. Through surveillance the investigators have observed Dorsey to be involved in activities, like brief meetings, that are consistent with drug trafficking. Dorsey has also been observed conducting meetings with Sean Noseworthy that were consistent with drug trafficking. Through an analysis of the DNR Dorsey has been observed to be in contact with Noseworthy, Christopher Bell and other known persons on numerous occasions.

[30] These paragraphs constitute a synopsis pertaining to Jerome Dorsey. The affidavit includes such a summary for each major target. This synopsis performs the same role that a conclusion does in any document or presentation. It is, of course, dependant on the information that precedes it. As already indicated, this affidavit is a lengthy one. Since I have found that the Applicants are not entitled to cross-examine the Affiant with respect to the preceding information in question, it follows that they are prohibited from doing so with respect to the aforementioned synopsis.

Released: March 19, 2015

Signed: Justice J. De Filippis

[1] The other lawyers involved are: Ms. Duncan, Mr. Owoh, Ms. Petrouchinova, Ms. Kissova and Mr. Brodsky. Mr. Lutz represented Legal Aid Ontario.

[2] Confidential informants are governed by different principles: R. v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51.