The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained via search warrants, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained material omissions regarding the credibility and reliability of the primary source.

The court found that the police affiant breached the "full, fair, and frank" disclosure obligation due to severe negligence and inexperience, which subverted the pre-authorization process.

Although the corrected ITO could still have provided reasonable grounds for the warrants, the court exercised its residual discretion to set them aside, deeming the police conduct as "bad faith" for the purpose of this discretion.

Consequently, the searches were unauthorized and breached section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant test under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct and the impact on the applicant's privacy interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence of serious firearms offences, leading to the exclusion of the handgun, conducted energy weapon, and brass knuckles found.

The applicant, Spiro Rusha, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search warrant execution, arguing the warrant lacked reasonable grounds and the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading.

He also challenged the lawfulness of his arrest under s. 9 of the Charter and alleged excessive force during the arrest under s. 7.

The court dismissed all applications, finding the search warrant valid based on credible, compelling, and corroborated confidential informant information, and that the affiant did not intentionally mislead the issuing justice.

The court also found reasonable grounds for the arrest and that the force used was not excessive given the circumstances.

The appellant, Vadim Ilia, appealed convictions for accessing and possessing child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his Charter application to exclude evidence obtained via search warrants.

The trial judge had found a Charter violation due to a misdescription in one warrant but admitted the evidence, and relied on a prior 2015 investigation to establish reasonable grounds for the warrants, despite the Crown's concession against its use for that purpose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 2015 investigation was properly available for consideration and, in any event, there was no "gap" in the reasonable grounds for the warrants, as the possibility of third-party internet access was not sufficiently weighty to undermine the probability of the IP address being used by someone at the linked address.

The applicant, charged with accessing child pornography, brought an application under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The defence argued that the information to obtain (ITO) did not provide reasonable grounds for the warrant, specifically raising concerns about the staleness of the information.

The Crown contended that the ITO disclosed sufficient information.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that the ITO contained reasonable grounds upon which the issuing justice could have issued the search warrant, emphasizing that the nature of child pornography as non-consumable digital evidence affects the staleness analysis.

The appellant appealed his conviction for various drug and firearm offences and his nine-year global sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged the validity of a search warrant under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds, particularly regarding the inclusion of facts from prior withdrawn or stayed charges.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the ITO, based on the totality of evidence and corroborative facts, justified the warrant.

The sentence appeal argued the nine-year global sentence was excessive, but the Court found the trial judge's sentencing discretion was reasonable.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The accused, Duval Smith, challenged the validity of CDSA search warrants, seeking to exclude seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 8 rights.

The challenge was sub-facial, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading due to affiant carelessness, including erroneous source history, improper investigative file maintenance, and inadequate presentation of previous warrant information.

The court found the affiant careless but not intentionally misleading, and that despite the deficiencies, the ITO, when excised and amplified, still provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant's issuance based on compelling and corroborated confidential source information and surveillance.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, Ishmael Robinson, challenged his inclusion as a target in a wiretap authorization (Auth #1) under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code, seeking exclusion of intercepted communications under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He argued that the grounds in the information to obtain (ITO) were vague and stale.

The Crown contended that the grounds, viewed holistically, met the low threshold for naming individuals in an ITO.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cumulative effect of the grounds established reasonable belief that the applicant's communications would assist the ongoing investigation, and the information was not stale given the large-scale nature of the criminal organization investigation.