R. v. La, 2025 ONSC 3529

CITATION: R. v. La, 2025 ONSC 3529

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-1245

DATE: 2025-06-19

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Respondent

– and –

ANTHONY LA

Applicant

S. Patterson and A. Grady, for the Crown

H. Aly, for the Applicant

HEARD: June 16, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Bordin J.

Overview

1On September 14, 2021, Sabir Omer was shot and killed outside a Tim Hortons on King Street West in Hamilton. A shot was also fired at Aboud Mohammad who was with Sabir Omer. The applicant is charged with the first-degree murder of Sabir Omer and with the attempted murder of Aboud Mohammad.

2On October 12, 2021, Hamilton Police obtained a search warrant to search the applicant’s home located at 155 Stirton Street, Hamilton, Ontario. During the search, the police located and seized several cell phones. A subsequent cell phone extraction resulted in the discovery of photographs showing the applicant in the same sweater as the one worn by the killer of Sabir Omer and holding various guns. Videos of the applicant with guns were also discovered.

3The applicant has brought a facial challenge to the Information to Obtain (the “ITO”). No application was made to cross-examine the affiant. The applicant does not assert that there were errors in the ITO or that there was a failure to make full and frank disclosure.

4The applicant asserts that the ITO did not disclose reasonable grounds to believe that he was implicated in the shooting, or that evidence of the offence would be found at 155 Stirton Street.

5The applicant asserts that his s. 8 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) rights were violated, seeks a declaration to that effect, and seeks to quash the warrant. He seeks an order pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter excluding all evidence seized from the residence and excluding all testimony relating to that evidence.

Applicable Law

6Warrant review begins from a premise of presumed validity. It follows from this presumption of validity that the onus of demonstrating invalidity falls on the party who asserts it: R. v. Sadikov, 2014 ONCA 72, at para. 83.

7The scope of warrant review is narrow. The review is not a de novo hearing of the ex parte application. The reviewing judge does not substitute his or her view for that of the issuing judge: Sadikov, at para. 84, citing R. v. Garofoli, 1990 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421, at p. 1452; R. v. Ebanks, 2009 ONCA 851, 97 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 20, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2010] 1 S.C.R. ix; and R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at para. 40.

8The test is whether there was reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the warrant could – not would – have issued: Sadikov, at para. 83, citing Morelli, at para. 40; R. v. Araujo, 2000 SCC 65, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992, at para. 54; and Garofoli, at p. 1452.

9It is not the reviewing judge’s role to determine whether he would issue the warrant on the basis of the amplified record. Nor is it the reviewing judge’s role to draw inferences, or to prefer one inference over another: Sadikov, at para. 88.

10As set out by the majority in R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at para. 44, in reviewing the sufficiency of the warrant application, deficiencies in an ITO must be addressed before determining whether it could support the issuance of the warrant and the reviewing court must exclude erroneous information included in the original ITO.

11A facial validity challenge requires the reviewing judge to examine the ITO and to determine whether, on the face of the information disclosed there, the justice could have issued the warrant: Araujo, at para. 19; and Sadikov, at para. 17. The record examined on a facial review is fixed – it is the ITO, not an amplified or enlarged record: Sadikov, at para. 37.

12As summarized in Sadikov at paras. 81 and 82:

The statutory standard – “reasonable grounds to believe” – does not require proof on the balance of probabilities, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The statutory and constitutional standard is one of credibly-based probability: Hunter v. Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at p. 167; and R. v. Law, 2002 BCCA 594, 171 C.C.C. (3d) 219, at para. 7. The ITO must establish reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the proposed search: Hunter, at p. 168. If the inferences of criminal conduct and recovery of evidence are reasonable on the facts disclosed in the ITO, the warrant could be issued: R. v. Jacobson (2006), 2006 CanLII 12292 (ON CA), 207 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 22.

The authorizing justice makes his or her decision about whether to issue the warrant from the evidence included in the ITO as a whole, approaching the assessment on a common sense, practical, non-technical basis. The justice, like the trier of fact at a trial, is also entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the contents of the ITO: R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, at para. 16; R. v. Shiers, 2003 NSCA 138, 219 N.S.R. (2d) 196, at para. 13; and Wilson, at para. 52.

13It must be considered whether the information provided by a third-party source outside the police is compelling, from a credible source, and corroborated. However, that does not change the standard of “reasonable belief”: R. v. Cusick, 2019 ONCA 524, at para. 31.

14In R. v. Serendip Physiotherapy Clinic, 2004 CanLII 39011 (ON CA), 73 O.R. (3d) 241, at para. 35, the Court of Appeal for Ontario noted that s. 487 of the Criminal Code precludes granting a search warrant for the purposes of a fishing expedition or based on mere suspicion.

The ITO

15The affidavit appended to the ITO is 98 pages and 175 paragraphs long. It contains a substantial amount of information regarding the activities of Jahquann and Trayonte Eccleston. The affidavit also sets out information related to another homicide and attempted murder for which the Ecclestons have been charged. This is in part because the ITO also sought search warrants for the Ecclestons’ residence and vehicle, or places they frequented, and because the Crown’s position is that the Ecclestons were co-conspirators with the applicant.

16The affidavit sets out the following information relevant to this application:

a. details of a Ford Fusion seen in the area of the Tim Hortons engaged in what appears to be surveillance of the Tim Hortons, the surrounding area, and of Sabir Omer;

b. a black Acura RDX meeting up with the Ford Fusion near the Tim Hortons, five minutes before the shooting, and an unknown person exiting the Acura RDX and approaching the Ford Fusion;

c. details regarding the Ford Fusion and Acura RDX, suggesting that the vehicles were associated with and used by Trayonte and Jahquann both on the day of the shooting and at other times;

d. the activities of a person identified by an officer as Jonas Campanaro attending the Tim Hortons shortly prior to the shooting, walking in the area around the Tim Hortons, and talking on a cell phone in the hour before the shooting;

e. Jonas Campanaro interacting with a person wearing similar clothes to the shooter near the Tim Hortons less than 40 minutes before the shooting;

f. the statement of the victim, Aboud Mohammed, that the shooter said “pussy” while holding a gun in his left hand and fired three rounds toward him and Sabir Omer, who Aboud Mohammed knew as “FB”;

g. Aboud Mohammed’s description of the shooter as a young and skinny Asian male, who was shorter than him;

h. a description of the shooter by a witness, D. Rivers, who said the shooter was a thin black male, 5’6” in height;

i. a description of the shooter by another witness, R. Becker, who said the shooter was 5'6"-5’7", approximately 20 years of age, and appeared white or light skinned;

j. a description of the shooter by a third witness, M. Ahmed, who said the shooter was short and skinny and that he heard from someone on the scene that Sabir Omer stole drug customers from a Chinese guy and had a fight 15 days before the shooting;

k. a description from the police NICHE database, from 2021, that the applicant is Asian, 5’5”, and 110 pounds;

l. that the applicant was released from the Hamilton Detention Center two weeks before the shooting;

m. a description from the police NICHE database, from 2021, that Jahquann is 6’2” and Trayonte is 6’0”;

n. the similar paths taken by the Ford Fusion and the shooter immediately following the shooting and the details which suggest that the shooter and Ford Fusion met up about ten minutes after the shooting;

o. a statement from Abdaziz Omer, a relative of Sabir Omer, on September 15, 2021, that:

i. he had received a photograph of a person named Anthony from a friend he would not identify and that he was told that someone named Anthony was responsible for shooting Sabir Omer;

ii. that Anthony and Sabir Omer had conflict in the prior five months, with a description of the incidents (although the description was not contained in the ITO) and the location of the incidents and their timing; and

iii. that Anthony and Sabir Omer once attended the same high school;

p. a call from Abdaziz Omer to the police on September 21, 2021, reporting that he believed the shooter was the applicant;

q. that the applicant’s address was listed as 155 Stirton Street in NICHE and CPIC;

r. details of surveillance on the applicant on September 20, 2021, six days after the shooting, that show him leaving 155 Stirton Street, meeting with two males, one of whom is believed to be Jahquann, then details of their activities together over the course of two hours attending Limeridge Mall twice and Jackson Square once and purchasing gaming consoles, including an attendance by a person believed to be Trayonte Eccleston; and

s. that in 2017 Jahquann and the applicant were associates, were linked as co-accused in NICHE, and were reported to be seen together on a regular basis.

The applicant’s position

17As noted, the applicant’s position is that the ITO does not disclose reasonable and probable grounds to implicate him in the shooting of Sabir Omer or reasonable and probable grounds to believe that evidence related to the shooting would be located at the residence.

18In his written materials, the applicant asserts the following issues with the ITO:

a. there was minimal to no corroboration of the information from Abdaziz Omer; and

b. the supporting affidavit did not make it clear how fleeting the evidence was or how weak the evidence was of the applicant’s involvement.

19In oral submissions, the applicant conceded that the ITO lays out that the Ecclestons and Jonas Campanaro were involved in the Sabir Omer homicide. He also conceded that he is not asserting a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure. The applicant did not point out any errors in the ITO. The applicant focused his submissions on three issues.

20The first is the unsourced information from Abdaziz Omer that “Anthony” and later that Anthony La was the shooter. The applicant submits that this is unsourced information and that there was no reason to believe it was reliable or anything other than speculation from a family member. The applicant makes the same submission with respect to Abdaziz Omer’s information about conflict between “Anthony” and Sabir Omer – it was unsourced and there was no reason to believe it was reliable.

21The applicant also submits that the generic description that the shooter was Asian is insufficient to connect the shooter to the applicant.

22Finally, the applicant submits that the fact that the applicant and the Ecclestons went shopping together adds nothing of substance to the grounds.

The Crown’s position

23The Crown’s position is that the ITO set out reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the warrant could have issued.

24The Crown concedes that, standing alone, Abdaziz Omer’s statements that he heard the applicant was the shooter does not much move the needle. However, the Crown submits that the affidavit set out reasonable grounds to infer or believe that:

a. the description of the shooter was a “spot-on” match to the applicant;

b. the shooting was the result of a “confederacy of men”, with the Ecclestons at the heard of that confederacy;

c. in such a murderous confederacy, the parties would want the shooter to be a trusted friend (the Crown concedes that this is not the only inference that could be drawn, but submits that it was an inference available to the issuing justice);

d. the applicant was such a trusted friend;

e. the applicant had animus toward the deceased; and

f. the motive for the killing was animus.

Analysis

25In his written submissions the applicant focuses on the concluding statements in the 96-page affidavit and submits that the statements do not amount to reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the applicant was involved in the shooting of Sabir Omer. However, the concluding statements are supported by evidence throughout the affidavit.

26There was evidence from Abdaziz Omer that he had been told that the applicant was the shooter. Alone this would not be sufficient, but it was bolstered by other evidence.

27The witnesses described the shooter as more than just Asian. The shooter was described by Aboud Mohammed and three witnesses as “a young, skinny Asian male, who was shorter than” Aboud Mohammed; “a thin black male, 5’6” in height”; “5'6"-5’7", approximately 20 years of age, and appeared white or light skinned”; and “short and skinny”. The description from the police NICHE database from 2021 noted that the applicant is Asian, 5’5”, and 110 pounds. The ITO also set out the heights of Jahqann and Trayonte, ruling them out as the shooter. The applicant’s height and weight fit with all the descriptions by the witnesses of the shooter’s height and body size. The applicant’s ethnicity fits with the description of at least one of the witnesses. The possibility that the applicant was involved is further supported by other grounds.

28The affidavit provided reasonable grounds to believe that there was a plan by several persons to find and shoot Sabir Omer. It sets out reasonable grounds to believe that the people involved included the drivers of the Ford Fusion and the Acura RDX, Jonas Campanaro, and the shooter. As conceded by the applicant, the ITO lays out that the Ecclestons and Jonas Campanaro were involved in the Sabir Omer homicide.

29The ITO provided reasonable grounds to believe that Trayonte and Jahquann were the drivers of the Ford Fusion and the Acura RDX on the day of the shooting, that the Ford Fusion and the shooter took similar paths immediately following the shooting, and details which suggest that the shooter and Ford Fusion met up about 10 minutes after the shooting.

30The ITO provided reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant and Jahquann were associates and co-accused and spent time together on a regular basis as early as 2017. Further that Jahquann and the applicant were close enough that they went to purchase gaming consoles together at two malls just six days after the shooting, and that Trayonte Eccleston attended the mall where they were shopping and stopped next to the vehicle they drove there.

31Abdaziz Omer provided information to police of two incidents of conflict between Sabir Omer and the applicant in the previous five months and where they occurred. Although it would have been better if the affidavit also set out some details of the nature of the conflict, that is not fatal to the warrant. There was also another witness who described overhearing someone on the scene say that Sabir Omer stole drug customers from a Chinese guy and had a fight 15 days before the shooting. In addition, Aboud Mohammed, who was with Sabir Omer at the time of the shooting, said that the shooter said “pussy” while holding a gun in his left hand and fired three rounds toward him and Sabir Omer.

32The affidavit is not misleading as to the limited evidence of the applicant’s involvement, as suggested by the applicant in his written submissions. Much of the affidavit sets out the evidence with respect to the involvement of the Ecclestons and Jonas Campanaro, together with the limited evidence available regarding the applicant.

33There is no evidence that the police withheld material facts from the affidavit. There is nothing to suggest anything but full and frank disclosure by the police. Indeed, a description of the shooter as black was included by the police.

34The applicant did not challenge the Crown’s detailed written submissions that the issuing justice could reasonably believe the applicant’s mobile phone would afford evidence and that such an inference is supported by decisions including R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 621, at para. 48; and R. v. Skeete, 2012 ONSC 2633, at paras. 3-4.

35The ITO established reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed and that there was evidence to be found at the place of the proposed search. There was sufficient credible and reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on which the warrant could have issued. The justice, considering the ITO as a whole, approaching the assessment on a common sense, practical, and non-technical basis, and drawing reasonable inferences, could have issued the warrant on the information disclosed in the ITO.

Disposition

36I find that there was no breach of the applicant’s s. 8 Charter rights. The applicant’s application is dismissed.

Bordin, J.

Released: June 19, 2025

CITATION: R. v. La, 2025 ONSC 3529