S. Byrne

The applicant sought Garofoli relief excluding wiretap, tracking, surveillance, hallway video, and search warrant evidence obtained during a drug investigation that later intersected with a first degree murder prosecution.

The court found that one assertion in the ITO inaccurately stated the applicant was directly observed in a bag exchange with a major drug target, and that assertion had to be excised.

However, applying the Garofoli framework, the court held the affiant honestly and reasonably believed the applicant was involved based on circumstantial evidence, leaving sufficient reliable grounds to support the Part VI authorization and tracking warrant.

The hallway camera installation in the condominium common area breached s. 8 of the Charter because it was not specifically authorized, but the evidence was admitted under s. 24(2).

All exclusion applications were dismissed.

Following his acquittal on weapons charges arising from the G20 protests, the applicant sought costs of $10,310 against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging police and prosecutorial misconduct.

The court found no evidence of Crown misconduct or abuse of process in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Regarding police misconduct, the court held that the applicant had already received a remedy through the exclusion of evidence at trial, and that a civil claim for damages was the appropriate avenue for further relief.

The application for costs was dismissed.