The accused, facing firearms charges, brought pre-trial motions challenging the validity of a search warrant and a warrantless search of an Instagram account under s. 8 of the Charter.
They sought further disclosure and leave to cross-examine the affiant, arguing that a confidential informant was actually a police agent.
The court dismissed the disclosure and cross-examination motions, finding no evidence to support the police agent theory.
The court upheld the search warrant, concluding the information provided by informants was compelling, credible, and corroborated.
The court also dismissed the challenge to the Instagram search, finding the accused lost his reasonable expectation of privacy by accepting a stranger's follow request.