The accused was charged with production of cannabis and possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
The accused brought a Charter motion under sections 8, 10(b), and 24(2) seeking to quash the search warrant and exclude evidence obtained as a result of alleged breaches.
The court found that the Information to Obtain the search warrant contained material misrepresentations and failed to meet the requirement of full, frank, and fair disclosure.
Specifically, the detective overstated his expertise in marijuana grow operations when interpreting hydro consumption data, failed to adequately substantiate the reliability of an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip that was eight and one-half months old, and conducted only cursory surveillance.
The court concluded that without the detective's unsupported expert opinions regarding hydro readings, the remaining evidence fell short of establishing reasonable grounds to believe a marijuana grow operation was occurring at the residence.
