Ontario Court of Justice

Date: October 3, 2025

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Coby Patry

Before: Justice H. Borenstein

Reasons for Judgment on Garofoli delivered October 3, 2025

Counsel:

• A. Pinnock, counsel for the Crown
• J. Goldlist, counsel for the accused Coby Patry

BORENSTEIN J.:

Introduction

[1] In the fall of November 2023, a proven confidential informant ("C.I.") told their handler of a male named Coby who was selling cocaine in Toronto. The C.I. told the handler the male drove a black Acura and provided the licence plate number. The C.I. had provided accurate information to the police multiple times in the past resulting in arrests and seizures of drugs.

[2] Drug squad officers ran the Acura's plate and it came back registered to Coby Patry, the accused, with the listed address of #812, 40 Teesdale. Coby Patry's driver's licence was also registered to that address. Records show Coby Patry had been stopped three times driving the Acura in 2019, 2020 and 2021, and the associated address during those stops was the same apartment at 40 Teesdale. The M.T.O. driver's licence photo of Coby Patry was obtained and shown to the C.I. who confirmed he was the male in the Acura who trafficked drugs.

[3] Officers attended the apartment complex of 40 Teesdale and spoke with TCHC liaison officer Whalen. They learned Unit 812 was rented to Coby's mother Candice Patry since 2002 when Coby Patry would have been about 1 year old, and that Coby Patry was listed as the roommate on building records. The ITO incorrectly implied Coby was on the lease rather than as the roommate on other building records. There was one fob registered to the apartment but Whalen said there was a discrepancy as that fob was used by someone else. Unit 812 had one underground parking spot but no specific car was registered to that spot.

[4] Officers also viewed CCTV footage which showed Coby Patry leaving the 8th floor of the building at 8:30 at night on November 15th and go to the Acura which was parked in front of the building in the outdoor parking lot listed as "visitor's parking". He returned to 40 Teesdale just after 1:00 a.m., parked in that same area and entered the building using a security fob. He then took the elevator to the 8th floor. His car was still parked there at 8:00 p.m. FOB records and CCTV footage showed Coby Patry enter the building at 2:37 in the morning on November 18. Again, he entered with a fob and took the elevator to the 8th floor.

[5] On the strength of this information, D.C. Pena, swore an Information to Obtain ("ITO") that he believed Coby Patry was trafficking drugs, lived in Apartment 812, 40 Teesdale and evidence relating to drug trafficking and proceeds of crime would be found in the apartment. The police obtained the search warrant for Apartment 812, 40 Teesdale Place as well as the black Acura.

Execution of the Search Warrant

[6] At 6:00 in the morning on November 20, 2023, TPS executed that search warrant.

[7] Police found Coby Patry, asleep in a bedroom. He was arrested and the apartment was searched. Located in that bedroom were:

• 827.3 grams of cocaine in a desk drawer;
• 25.7 grams of MDMA in the same drawer;
• 301 grams of marijuana on the closet floor;
• $6,360 Canadian in another drawer of that desk;
• A digital scale covered in cocaine and a vacuum sealer in the desk;
• Dozens of empty zip lock bags and elastic bands;
• Documents including a passport and YMCA card in the name of Coby Patry in the desk drawer; and
• A Glock semi-automatic 9 mm handgun with the serial number defaced and a magazine with four rounds of ammunition on a shelf in a metal case that was made to look like a book.

[8] Nothing of relevance was found in the Acura.

[9] As a result, Patry is charged with numerous possession for the purpose of trafficking charges, possession of proceeds of crime and multiple firearms offences.

[10] Patry alleges the search violates section 8 of the Charter.

[11] Patry submits there were no reasonable grounds to believe he was the Coby referred to by the C.I., no reasonable grounds to believe he resided in Apartment 812 and no reasonable grounds to believe evidence would be found at that apartment.

[12] As a result, he submits the search warrant could not have been granted and the search violated section 8 of the Charter. He submits the evidence seized should be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2).

[13] Search warrants are presumptively valid. Coby Patry bears the onus of establishing the Charter breach and any remedy sought.

[14] For the reasons that follow, I disagree with the defence submission. The warrant was valid. There were reasonable grounds to believe Coby Patry was trafficking drugs, that he resided or occupied Unit 812, 40 Teesdale Place and that evidence of the offences would be found in the apartment.

The ITO

[15] D.C. Pena swore the ITO on November 18, 2023. The search was conducted at 6:00 a.m. November 20th. I have already summarized much of the relevant information contained in the ITO in the introduction to this decision. I will expand somewhat here.

[16] D.C. Pena had been a TPS officer for 15 years. In February, 2023, he began working in plainclothes and undercover with the Organized Crime Enforcement - Drug Squad investigating drug purchases.

[17] Pena set out the history of this investigation.

[18] Appendix D was partially redacted to protect the C.I's identity. The Crown seeks to rely on step six of Garofoli. Therefore, the defence was provided with a judicial summary describing the redacted information in general terms. A limited cross-examination of the affiant Pena and the sub-affiant Brykczynski was permitted. Any errors in the ITO must be excised from the ITO in assessing this Application.

[19] Before turning to the cross-examination, I will review the information in Appendix C and the redacted Appendix D as supplemented by the judicial summary. The issuing justice of course had available all the unredacted information. Much of the information I will now review is the same as referred to in the introduction of this decision.

[20] Appendix D indicates that D.C. Ghazarian was the handler of the C.I. On a date that has been redacted in the ITO but described in the judicial summary as within 90 days of the issuance of the warrant, the C.I. told Ghazarian:

• They know an individual (not the Applicant) who lives in Toronto who has been dealing cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine for a number of years.
• The C.I. has been buying cocaine from the 3rd party for a number of years and details the amounts they pay for various quantities of cocaine.
• The C.I. contacted the 3rd party within 90 days of the issuance of the warrant to purchase cocaine.
• The 3rd party and a male driving an older model black Acura with a licence plate recorded by the C.I. had an interaction involving specific drug related activity. This interaction included information relating to the "Teesdale apartment complex".
• The C.I. learned the male driving the Acura was named "Coby", that Coby deals powder and crack cocaine as well as fentanyl and methamphetamine.
• The C.I. advised that the cocaine appeared to be a high-quality product.

The ITO further indicated:

• The C.I. was well entrenched in the drug culture and had been using drugs for a specified but redacted period of time.
• The C.I.'s motivation for providing the information was provided to the issuing justice.
• The C.I. was told there would be no consideration given if the information provided was inaccurate and did not result in any seizures and arrests.
• The C.I. was advised it was a criminal offence to provide false information.
• The issuing justice was advised the C.I. provided the police with reliable information eight times in the past resulting in seizures of cocaine, fentanyl and proceeds of crime as well as arrests of individuals. The justice was provided the details of those previous instances.

[21] In Appendix C, Pena described the police checks conducted on November 17, 2023 which connected Patry to the Acura and to Unit 812, 40 Teesdale Place. Those checks were the following:

• The Acura with the licence plate described by the C.I. was registered to Coby Patry. The associated address for the Acura was 812, 40 Teesdale Place.
• Patry had been stopped for traffic offences while driving that Acura in 2019, 2020 and 2021. On each of those occasions, the registered address was the same Teesdale address.
• An M.T.O. search conducted November 17, 2023 revealed Coby Patry had a valid driver's licence. His registered address was the same Teesdale address.

[22] On November 17, 2023, D.C. Brykczynski attended the Teesdale building and spoke to TCHC Field Intelligence Officer Whalen. Whalen's employer was responsible for providing security at 40 Teesdale.

[23] Whalen provided Brykczynski with documentation related to the lease of Apartment 812 and indicated it had been rented to Coby's mother Candice Patry since 2002. Candice was described as the primary leaseholder "in addition to her son Coby". Whalen sent Brykczynski an email with a screenshot of a Toronto Community Housing record which described Coby Patry as the 'roommate'. That screenshot was included in paragraph 23 of the ITO.

[24] Whalen told Brykczynski that an underground parking spot was registered to Unit 812 but no specific car was registered to the parking spot.

[25] There was only one fob associated with Unit 812 but Whalen indicated there was a "discrepancy" as records show another male unrelated to the unit was using that fob. Whalen advised the fob inventory would clarify matters but was not then readily available.

[26] Brykczynski reviewed the building's CCTV footage. He saw Patry and a female leaving the 8th floor at 8:27 p.m. November 15, 2023 and enter the Acura parked in front of the building in a parking lot described as "visitor's parking".

[27] Patry was seen on video returning to the building alone at 1:02 a.m. He parked in the same outdoor area and entered the building using a fob. He took the elevator and returned to the 8th floor and walked down the hallway toward Unit 812. Cameras do not extend all the way to the apartment door.

[28] Brykczynski saw the Acura still was parked in the same spot at 8:00 p.m. that night.

[29] Brykczynski met with Whalen again and learned, based on Patry's entry at 1:03 a.m. with a fob, that he was using a temporary service fob to access the building. Based on that fob's records and as confirmed by CCTV footage, Brykczynski saw Patry enter the building at 2:27 a.m. on November 18, 2023 and take the elevator up to the 8th floor.

Cross-Examination

[30] A limited cross-examination of the affiant Pena and the sub-affiant Brykczynski was permitted. Any errors must be excised from the ITO in assessing this application.

D.C. Pena

[31] The affiant swore he believed Coby Patry occupied in Unit 812 and disclosed the various police checks done at Teesdale. Included in the ITO are the following two statements:

Paragraph 9 – "Following a thorough police investigation that included database checks, police were successful in confirming the male's identity as Coby Patry (d.o.b.2001-06-08). Additional follow up completed by investigators at 40 Teesdale Place confirmed Patry is currently registered and residing at the premises in Unit #812"

And, at paragraph 23,

"Whalen provided documentation related to the tenant/lease holder for Unit #812 at 40 Teesdale Place, Toronto which identified Candice Patry as the primary leaseholder, in addition to her son Coby".

[32] Coby was one year old when his mother rented the apartment. He was not on the lease.

[33] D.C Brykczynski was the officer who dealt with Whalen. He did not look at the lease. He received an email from Whalen describing Coby Patry as living in Unit 812 as the roommate of Candice Patry. That is the email and information he passed on to Pena. The portion of the email was included in the ITO.

[34] The cross-examination revealed Coby Patry was not on the actual lease as the leaseholder. He was noted on the fob inventory record as the roommate. I find this error inadvertent. The screenshot describing Patry as the roommate was included in the ITO.

[35] Accordingly, reference to Coby Patry being on the actual lease as a tenant must be excised from the ITO.

[36] With those matters clarified and the information about Patry being on the lease excised, I turn to the ITO and the question whether the search warrant could reasonably have issued.

Grounds for a CDSA Search Warrant

[37] Section 11 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act permits a justice to issue a search warrant where the justice is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed and there is a controlled substance, precursor, anything in which those items are contained or concealed, any offence related property or anything that will afford evidence in respect to that offence in that place.

[38] As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Sadikov (para. 81):

The statutory standard – "reasonable grounds to believe" – does not require proof on the balance of probabilities, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The statutory and constitutional standard is one of credibly-based probability [citations omitted]. The ITO must establish reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the proposed search: Hunter, at p. 168. If the inferences of criminal conduct and recovery of evidence are reasonable on the facts disclosed in the ITO, the warrant could be issued: R. v. Jacobson (2006), 207 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 22.

The authorizing justice makes his or her decision about whether to issue the warrant from the evidence included in the ITO as a whole, approaching the assessment on a common sense, practical, non-technical basis. The justice, like the trier of fact at a trial, is also entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the contents of the ITO: R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, at para. 16; R. v. Shiers, 2003 NSCA 138, 219 N.S.R. (2d) 196, at para. 13; and, at para. 52.

[39] The legal question when reviewing a search warrant is not whether the reviewing judge would have issued the warrant. It is whether the issuing justice could reasonably have, meaning, could the justice reasonably conclude reasonable grounds existed to believe an offence was committed and evidence of the offence would be found in the place to be search.

[40] In paragraph 84-85 of Sadikov, the Court held:

The scope of warrant review is narrow. The review is not a de novo hearing of the ex parte application. The reviewing judge does not substitute his or her view for that of the issuing judge: [citations omitted]. The standard is whether there is sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice to find reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that evidence of that offence would be found at the specified time and place of search: Morelli, at para. 40. Said in another way, the test is whether there was reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the warrant could – not would – have issued: Morelli, at para. 40; Araujo, at para. 54; and Garofoli, at p. 1452.

The reviewing court does not undertake its review solely on the basis of the ITO that was before the issuing judge. The reviewing court must exclude erroneous information included in the original ITO, but may also consider, within limits, additional evidence adduced on the voir dire to correct minor errors in the ITO. Amplification evidence corrects good faith errors of the police in preparing the ITO, but does not extend to deliberate attempts to mislead the authorizing judge: Morelli, at para. 41; and Araujo, at para. 58. Evidence relied upon to amplify the record must be evidence available to investigators at the time the ITO was sworn, not information acquired later: Morelli, at para. 43.

The Debot Criteria

[41] It is well established that, where the ITO is based largely on information from a C.I., the issuing justice must consider whether the information in support of the warrant is compelling, credible and corroborated. A weakness in one of those areas may be overcome by strength in another.

[42] In this case, the information provided that Coby was a drug dealer was specific and detailed. It was not ambiguous. It was compelling. Further, it was credible. The C.I. has a proven track record of providing reliable information to the police eight times. The issuing justice was advised of their motivation and issues affecting credibility.

The Specific Attacks on the Warrant by Patry

[43] Patry submits there was no reasonable grounds to believe he was the Coby referred to by the C.I. as the drug trafficker or that he occupied Unit 812 or that evidence would be found there.

[44] I disagree.

[45] The C.I. spoke of a Coby in a black Acura with a particular licence plate who was trafficking cocaine with some connection to Teesdale.

[46] The police ran the Acura's licence plate and it came back registered to Coby Patry with a registered address of Apartment 812, 40 Teesdale Place. Further, the C.I. identified the M.T.O. photo of Coby as Patry as the Coby in question. That information is enough to establish a reasonable belief that the Coby referred to was Coby Patry. Showing one photo would undermine an identification procedure but, in this case, there was the name Coby and the car, plate and the area.

[47] There were also reasonable grounds to believe Coby Patry resided or occupied Unit 812.

[48] Coby Patry owned a black Acura. It was registered to Unit 812, 40 Teesdale. His driver's licence was also registered to that address. Those searches were done just before the warrant was issued. He was stopped three times in 2019, 2020 and 2021 and that same address was on his licence and registration. His mother lived at the apartment. Patry was listed on the fob record as a roommate. Further, Coby Patry was seen on video leaving the 8th floor at 8:30 at night on November 15th getting into the Acura parked in the visitor's outdoor parking in front of the building. He returned just after 1:00 am on the 16th and parked the car in the same area. He entered the building using a fob and went up to the 8th floor. His car remained parked there at 8:00 p.m. He also was seen entering the building with the fob at 2:37 a.m. on November 18th. He was seen returning to the building just after 1:00 a.m. on that day and just after 2:30 a.m. on another suggesting he lived or at least was sleeping in the apartment. All those factors lead to the reasonable inference he resided or occupied Apartment 812. That he parked out front in the visitor's designated spot does not detract from those inferences. Many people likely choose to park outside for various reasons including convenience, preference or perhaps they don't have an available spot underground. It does not in itself make them visitors.

[49] There was also a reasonable basis for the belief that evidence would be found in Apartment 812.

Reasonable Belief Evidence Would be Found

[50] At this point in the analysis, there are reasonable grounds to believe Coby Patry traffics cocaine, possessed proceeds of crime and resides, or at a minimum, occupies, Unit 812, 40 Teesdale Place.

[51] The CDSA authorizes searches for drugs, containers, any offence related property or anything that will afford evidence in respect to the offences in question. The offences here are trafficking cocaine and proceeds of crime.

[52] Appendix A listed the items to be searched for; illicit drugs, materials used for their packaging and weighing, debt lists, Canadian currency as proceeds of crime and cell phones used in the sale of the illegal drugs.

[53] The question is whether there were reasonable grounds to believe any or all of those items would be found in Coby Patry's residence.

[54] Pena swore (paras. 40-44) he believed evidence would be found in Patry's apartment. He had not been told specifically that drugs or evidence would be found in Patry's apartment but he inferred it and set out the underlying facts and basis for his belief in the ITO.

[55] He believed Patry, as an active cocaine trafficker, would be in possession of a stash to meet his customers' demand. He did not believe dealers would likely deposit their proceeds of sales into the bank for fear of attracting suspicion. Cocaine and money were valuable commodities. He believed it was likely a dealer would keep those valuable items in a secure place under restricted access such as their home or car.

[56] A police officer or affiant is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the facts presented in the ITO to support his or her belief and an issuing justice is entitled to assess the reasonableness of those inferences and belief. Indeed, in many cases, there is no direct evidence of an important fact or an item's location but it is based on a belief flowing from the presented facts and the Court assesses the reasonableness of the belief. A minor example would be observations of short meetings and something exchanged supporting a belief of a drug transaction. In other words, an affiant is entitled to draw reasonable inferences and an issuing justice can assess those inferences based on the information presented in the ITO.

[57] Turning to whether Pena's belief that items would be located in Patry's residence was reasonable, Justice Goldstein in the 2024 case of Zaringhalami, 2024 ONSC 6700 grappled with a similar issue. While the facts of that case are different, I quote his analysis as it relates to these legal principles. At paragraph 36-37, Justice Goldstein writes:

The crux of the defence argument is that there was no evidence that there were drugs at 155 Leameadow Road. Nothing in the surveillance evidence, the database searches, or the informant information suggested that Mr. Zaringhalami kept drugs at that address. Mr. Chartier argues that there was only this conclusory statement made by DC Pinto in the ITO:

Larger quantities of drugs are commonly kept at the residence or storage unit because the dealer does not want to be in possession of large quantities of product for various reasons like being stopped by the police or being robbed of their product. I believe that drugs are being stored in the residence located at 155 Leameadow Road, Thornhill, ON, as ZARINGHALAMI has been observed here and has it listed as his home address.

Mr. Chartier argues that this is a conclusory statement by a police officer with less than one year on the drug squad (although DC Pinto had been an officer for several years by then). Respectfully, I cannot agree. Many judges have made the exact same observation. They have made that observation because it accords with common sense. Drugs are valuable and drug dealers want to store them in a safe place.

[58] In the 2024 Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ifesimeshone, 2024 ONCA 834, an officer believed the accused trafficked narcotics and had two residences. The information came largely from C.I.'s. Police confirmed the accused lived at a residence and obtained a search warrant. The search yielded large quantities of narcotics. The trial judge made several findings to conclude the search warrant could not have been granted. One of the trial judge's findings was there was no information or connection between the residence and drug trafficking to justify a search of that residence. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge. As it relates to whether there was a reasonable basis to believe drugs or other evidence would be found at the residence, I excerpt part of the Court of Appeal judgment (at paras. 34-36):

The Crown also argues that the trial judge erred in finding that there was an insufficient nexus between the alleged offences and the places to be searched by, in effect, requiring direct evidence of drug activity at the Vaughan location.

It is an error to hold that, in effect, direct evidence was required to establish a link between the Vaughan address and drugs that would be evidence of the commission of offences. Reasonable inferences may be relied on in the absence of direct evidence. The question was whether the ITO set out facts sufficient to allow the issuing judge to reasonably draw the inference that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at that location: R. v. Kalonji, 2022 ONCA 415, 162 O.R. (3d) 283, at paras. 22-25; R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657, at paras. 16-18. In my view, it did.

And at paragraph 37, the Court held:

The location in Vaughan could be reasonably inferred to be the respondent's residence, or one of them. Moreover, two days before the issuance of the search warrants, police conducted surveillance at that location, after confirming with on-site management that the respondent was the registered tenant. They saw one of the respondent's vehicles parked in the underground parking garage of the Vaughan location. Later they observed him drive out of the underground parking garage, park his vehicle in the parking lot of another building in Toronto, exit his vehicle, walk toward the front driver side of another vehicle in the parking lot, and then walk away after a "quick interaction" with the other driver. The confidential source whose information included "[f]irst-hand information about accused's recent drug trafficking practice, including type of drug", described the respondent as conducting drug transactions from his vehicles. It was therefore a reasonable inference, available to the issuing judge, that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the respondent's Vaughan residence.

[59] The same applies here. There was a reasonable basis to infer that Patry is a drug dealer, that he resides in Unit 812, 40 Teesdale and that evidence of those offences, particularly valuable items such as money and cocaine, as well as other items such as a cell phone and the other items sought in the ITO, would be kept securely with him in his residence. For these reasons it was a reasonable inference that an issuing justice could draw and the Application is dismissed.

Reasons delivered: October 3, 2025

Signed: Justice H. Borenstein