Peter B. Wenglowski

The applicant sought to quash two search warrants and exclude seized evidence under s. 8 and s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the warrants were issued without reasonable and probable grounds.

The Crown contended the searches were lawful and, alternatively, that evidence should be admitted.

The court reviewed the information to obtain (ITO) based on five confidential informants and extensive police surveillance, applying the Garofoli and Debot tests for assessing search warrant validity and informant reliability.

The court found that the totality of circumstances, including corroborated informant tips and observed patterns of suspicious activity (such as chemical burns and continuous occupation of a barn suspected of housing a clandestine drug lab), provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrants.

The application was dismissed, as no s. 8 Charter breach was found.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants of an Information to Obtain (ITO) for search warrants related to a methamphetamine lab.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed cross-examination areas were either irrelevant, speculative, risked breaching confidential informant privilege, or would not elicit probative value to discredit the reasonable grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The court emphasized the high threshold for granting leave to cross-examine affiants, the importance of protecting informant identity, and the need to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming proceedings.

The accused brought a pre-trial application seeking exclusion of heroin, cash, and a digital scale discovered during a warrantless arrest and vehicle search, alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Police had acted on a confidential informant’s tip alleging heroin trafficking from a vehicle and conducted two days of surveillance documenting multiple brief stops, short interactions with individuals, and what an officer described as a hand‑to‑hand exchange at a residence associated with a heroin user.

The court assessed the reliability of the tip and the police observations under the totality of the circumstances and the reasonable grounds standard under s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code.

Although individual observations might have been consistent with innocent conduct, the pattern of repeated brief stops and interactions corroborated the tip and provided objectively reasonable grounds for arrest.

Because the arrest was lawful, the search incident to arrest was also lawful and the evidence was admissible.