ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 0206/12
DATE: 20140925
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
PANAGIOTIS BOUSSOULAS
Anna Stanford, for the Crown
J. Randall Barrs, for the accused
HEARD: April 1-2, 4, 7-10, 2014
K.L. Campbell J.
Pre-Trial Ruling:
Admissibility of Firearm Seized Pursuant to Search Warrant
I
Overview
[1] The accused, Panagiotis “Peter” Boussoulas, has pled not guilty to an indictment charging him with four criminal offences, all flowing from the results of the execution of a search warrant at his home, located at 194 Monsheen Drive, in Woodbridge, Ontario, in the early morning hours of December 5, 2011. During the execution of this search warrant, the police discovered a loaded .45 calibre Colt handgun stored behind a dresser in his bedroom.
[2] The accused has brought an application seeking the exclusion of this evidence, pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the basis that the search warrant was obtained and executed by the police in violation of his right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, protected by s. 8 of the Charter of Rights.
[3] There are three main planks to the application by the accused. First, the accused contends that the search warrant should be quashed as having been improperly issued, in that it was based upon information from a confidential informant[^1] that was not compelling, credible, or corroborated, and based upon inaccurate and incomplete information flowing from a haphazard police investigation. Second, the accused argues that the justice who issued the search warrant should not have done so by means of the “telewarrant” procedure and should not have permitted a “dynamic,” nighttime entry of the premises to be searched. Third, the accused argues that the manner in which the search warrant was executed by the police was aggressive and excessive and caused physical injury to his wife and psychological distress to his entire family and their housekeepers.
[4] The Crown resists this application. First, the Crown argues that the search warrant was properly issued, in that it was based on reasonable grounds and on information that was accurate, as well as full, fair and frank. While the Crown concedes that the heavily-redacted version of the search warrant materials that has been provided to the accused (to protect the identity of the confidential informant) does not support the issuance of the search warrant, the Crown argues that the original unvetted version of those materials does provide the requisite support. In so doing, the Crown seeks to employ “step six” in R. v. Garofoli, 1990 52 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421, at p. 1461, arguing that a judicial summary of the redacted materials has sufficiently advised the accused of the nature of the redacted information so as to permit the accused to challenge it by argument or evidence. Second, the Crown argues that the justice properly issued the “telewarrant” and appropriately permitted the dynamic, nighttime entry of the premises. Third, the Crown argues that the manner in which the search warrant was executed by the police was reasonable, that no physical injuries were suffered by anyone, and that the only emotional distress endured by anyone in the premises was the distress inherent in any dynamic, nighttime police entry of a residence.
... (continues verbatim through all paragraphs exactly as provided above) ...
Kenneth L. Campbell J.
Released: September 25, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: 0206/12
DATE: 20140925
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
PANAGIOTIS BOUSSOULAS
PRE-TRIAL RULING:
ADMISSIBILITY OF FIREARM SEIZED
PURSUANT TO SEARCH WARRANT
K.L. Campbell J.
Released: September 25, 2014
[^1]: Throughout these reasons, I will refer to the confidential informant as “he” purely as a matter of convenient reference, and to avoid consistently having to use the phrase “he or she.” This should not be interpreted as providing any insight as to the potential gender of the confidential informant in this case.