CITATION: R. v. Mamo, 2026 ONSC 4345
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
MICHAEL MAMO
Sarah Virani and Jason Mitschele,
for the Crown/Respondent
Marcus Bornfreund, for the Defendant/Applicant
HEARD: May 11, 12, and 14, 2026
rhinelander, j.
Overview
1Police sought and obtained search warrants for two apartment units located in 200 Wellesley Street and 325 Bleecker Street, believed to be associated with the Applicant. Police believed a firearm would be found at the Wellesley apartment where the Applicant lived, and that controlled substances would be found at the Bleecker apartment, where the Applicant and others were alleged to prepare fentanyl for distribution.
2On December 10, 2023, the Applicant was arrested exiting his apartment building and charged with several offences including possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, firearm offences, and offences related to possession of proceeds obtained by crime. At the police station, additional controlled substances and money were found on the Applicant’s person.
3The Applicant challenged the validity of the search warrants and sought to exclude evidence pursuant to s.24(2) of the Charter on the basis that his s. 8 rights were violated.
4The Respondent conceded there was an insufficient basis to issue the search warrants resulting in a breach of the Applicant’s s. 8 Charter rights. The Respondent argued although the ITO contained detailed and recent information from a credible confidential source, it failed to adequately explain how police connected the confidential source’s information concerning “Omar” to the Applicant. The Respondent argued the affiant was in possession of a report that addressed this issue but failed to include details in the ITO. Had that information been included, sufficient grounds existed to issue the warrants. On this basis, the Respondent submitted that exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) would undermine the administration of justice, not uphold it.
5On July 3, 2026, I granted the application to exclude the evidence obtained from the execution of the search warrants, as well as evidence found on his person. The following are my reasons.
Breach of the Applicant’s s. 8 Charter Rights
6Section 8 of the Charter provides that “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” Although the Applicant bears the onus of proving a Charter violation, here the Respondent conceded the search warrant could not have issued, resulting in a breach of the Applicant’s s. 8 Charter rights.
7The Respondent argued that the ITO contained detailed and recent information from a credible confidential source, some of which was independently corroborated through police database checks and surveillance; however, it failed to adequately explain how police connected the source’s information about the identity of “Omar” to the Applicant.
Legal Principles
8The applicable legal principles are not in dispute.
9A search warrant is presumed to be valid, and the onus is on the Applicant to show, on a balance of probabilities, that there was not sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice to issue the warrant: R. v. Pires; R. v. Lising, 2005 SCC 66, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343, para. 30; R. v. Sadikov, 2014 ONCA 72, 305 C.C.C. (3d) 421, para. 83; R. v. Crevier, 2015 ONCA 619, 330 C.C.C. (3d) 305, para. 66.
10A search is reasonable under s. 8 of the Charter if it is authorized by a reasonable law and conducted in a reasonable manner: R. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77, para. 12. A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable, shifting the burden of persuasion to the Crown to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the search was reasonable: R. v. Collins, 1987 CanLII 84 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, p. 278.
11Reasonable grounds to believe does not require proof on a balance of probabilities. It only requires credibly based probability which exceeds suspicion: Sadikov, para. 81; R. v. Brown, 2021 ONCA 540, 405 C.C.C. (3d) 316, para. 40; R. v. Herta, 2018 ONCA 927, para. 20. The issuing justice makes their decision from the evidence in the ITO as a whole; approaching the assessment on a common sense, practical, and non-technical basis: Sadikov, para. 82; R. v. Seangio, 2026 ONCA 172, para.12.
12The affiant of an ITO is entitled to rely upon the information of other officers, unless there is a reasonable cause to doubt the credibility and reliability of that information: World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 207, para. 123; R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11, [2020] 1 SCR 577, para. 82.
13The scope of review of a warrant is narrow. The question is not whether the judge reviewing the authorization would have issued the warrant, but whether there was sufficient information that could have permitted the authorizing justice to conclude that there were “reasonable grounds” justifying the issuance of the warrant: Sadikov, para. 84.
14Where, as here, a warrant is issued based on information provided by a confidential source, the court must consider the adequacy of the information specifically as it relates to I) the credibility or reliability of the confidential source; ii) whether the information is compelling or cogent; and iii) the degree to which the information provided by the confidential source is corroborated or confirmed by credible independent information. Weaknesses in one area may be compensated by strengths in the other two areas: R. v. Debot, 1989 CanLII 13 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140, p. 1168; R. v. Plant, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 281, p. 297; Crevier, para. 67.
15The police will rarely be able to confirm the tip to the extent of having observed the commission of the offence. That level of confirmation is not required: R. v. Bajich, 2019 ONCA 586, at para. 16, citing Rocha, at paras. 22-23.
16The existence of fraud, nondisclosure, misleading evidence, and new evidence are all relevant to a warrant review, but their sole impact is to determine whether there continues to be any basis for the decision of the issuing justice: R. v. Garofoli, 1990 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421.
17At the outset of the proceedings I inquired whether a judicial summary had been prepared and was advised the Crown would not be relying on any materials behind the redactions.
i. Credibility of the Confidential Source
18Credibility refers to the informer’s motivation, criminal antecedents, and any history of providing reliable information to the police. This assessment relates to the trustworthiness of the source of the information. There is no single determinative factor. A confidential source may be deemed credible if they are known to police, immersed in the criminal subculture, privy to details not generally known to the public, previously provided valuable information to the police, and are made aware that they face criminal prosecution by giving false information: R. v. Greaves-Bissesarsingh, 2014 ONSC 4900, 314 C.C.C. (3d) 493, para. 35.
19Here, the CS provided information to police on seven occasions which resulted in seizures and charges. Six of these seven occasions were in 2023. The issuing justice was informed the CS was immersed in the drug subculture which may impact the CS’s character or moral conviction.
20I find there was sufficient information before the issuing justice to conclude the CS was credible.
ii. Was the Information Compelling
21Compelling relates to the information itself and whether it has the characteristics that lead to a conclusion that the information is reliable. A tip is compelling if it is detailed and based on first-hand observations that are reasonably current. Conversely, a vague or conclusory tip based on dated and/or second-hand information is generally not considered to be compelling: Greaves-Bissesarsingh, at para. 40, citing R. v. Rocha, 2012 ONCA 707, 112 O.R. (3d) 742, at para. 28.
22The Respondent argued when the information is assessed together, it demonstrated the CS possessed specific facts about the Applicant including some firsthand observations. This information was neither vague nor speculative and the information was recent, detailed, and highly compelling.
23The CS provided information to the police regarding criminal activity occurring at the Bleecker street apartment on several occasions, the most recent in November of 2023. The CS was present in the apartment. I have summarized the information below from the Respondent’s factum and the ITO.
24On [redacted] 2023, the CS provided the following information:
Several young drug dealers in the St. Jamestown neighbourhood are armed with firearms.
CS was at unit 809 at 325 Bleecker Street. It is in a large Toronto Community Housing building.
The tenant of the unit is a male known to them as "Al".
“Al” allows a gang of young males in the area to attend his unit to cook and sell drugs.
“Al” receives money and drugs from the gang to allow them to use his unit.
The CS was present when young men all described as male black and early twenties entered the unit with drugs and [redacted] displayed firearms in their waistbands.
The CS knew two males by their nicknames, “Lucas” and “Omar”. The CS stated both Omar and Lucas had firearms on their person.
25On [redacted] 2023, [redacted] received the following information from [redacted]:
The CS stated he knew the names of several males specifically one named “Lucas” and one named “Omar”.
The CS described “Omar” as a larger build, late teens to early 20s, short, braided hair.
“Omar” was also in possession of a Glock style handgun.
CS stated [redacted] “Omar” was travelling throughout 325 Bleecker Street apartment building with [redacted] fentanyl.
26On the above occasion, police showed the CS a photo of a male who had the middle name of “Omar”. The CS stated the picture shown was not “Omar” but someone the CS knew as “CJ”. The CS believed “CJ” had also been in the unit in the past and had a firearm on his person on that date.
27On [redacted] 2023, [redacted] received the following information from CS [redacted]:
On June 20th, a shooting took place in front of 550 Ontario Street, Toronto. This is near 325 Bleecker Street.
The CS stated known rival drug dealers from the Regent Park neighbourhood shot at several young Bleecker Street gang members/drug dealers.
Police were aware a male young person had been shot. The victim of the shooting had similar physical features as “CJ”, who had been previously identified by the CS when shown a photograph of the person with a middle name of “Omar”.
A snipped still was taken from the Body Worn Camera footage depicting the victim of the shooting and shown to the CS. The CS confirmed that the male victim, was in fact known to the CS as “CJ” and was the male the CS saw on [redacted] 2023 with a handgun. “CJ” was not the person with the middle name of “Omar” that the CS had previously misidentified.
The CS says that “CJ” is a drug dealer, is part of a gang of drug dealers on Bleecker Street in the St. Jamestown neighbourhood and that he is armed with a handgun
28On [redacted] November [redacted] 2023, the CS advised of the following information:
The CS was inside of unit 809 [redacted].
Al (previously identified) on [redacted] 2023, sometime in the afternoon as the CS believes they sometimes attend school during the day.
While there [redacted] young males entered the unit.
The CS knows the group of young men who entered as the main drug dealers in the St. Jamestown neighbourhood.
The males were getting ready to make their rounds to deal drugs. One male, “Omar”, had [redacted] of purple fentanyl with him. The fentanyl was in several large chunks and wrapped in pieces of ripped plastic bags. The purple colour could be seen through.
“Omar” and [redacted] were present with firearms that they had visible in their waistbands. All firearms were black semi-automatic handguns. All appeared real based on metallic features and the magazine looked real.
The males did not stay long and often use the stairs to move throughout all the Bleecker buildings.
CS does not know the names of the other males present. They were all “masked up” with black medical masks or full-face masks and hoodies.
29A photograph showing a left profile of a male black with short braids, facial hair above his upper lip, facial hair along the side of his face and chin, wearing a black hoodie sweatshirt with pink and yellow writing believed to be “Omar” was shown to the CS. The CS confirmed this was “Omar”.
30The activity occurring within the Bleecker Street apartment is compelling insofar as the CS made first-hand observations of the males who attended in the apartment. The CS saw the males in possession of firearms and drugs.
31The CS knew some of the males by their street names or nicknames, believed they lived in the neighbourhood, and attended school sometimes.
32The CS did not provide any further information regarding these males outside the criminal activity observed in the unit. The description of “Omar” was generic – male black, larger build, late teens to early 20’s, short, braided hair, with no further information.
33There was no information linking “Omar” to the Applicant or to the Applicant’s residence.
iii. Corroboration of CS Information
34Corroboration refers to the existence of confirming or consistent evidence to support the information provided by the confidential source. This is often done by conducting further investigation based on the information received. Police may conduct database checks, surveillance, or other investigative steps to confirm details provided by the CS.
35This was a poorly investigated case. Officers did little or nothing to corroborate the information provided by the CS.
36The CS provided information to police about the drug activity at the Bleecker street apartment months before the police sought a search warrant. Despite having this information, police did no physical surveillance of the building or the surrounding area.
37Instead, police attended at the head office of the Toronto Housing Community Corporation on November 24, 2023, and reviewed and watched video footage of 325 Bleecker Street. Their observations were focused solely on the tenant of unit 809. Police observed the tenant board an elevator on the 9th floor and get off on the 8th floor on two occasions on that date.
38Police reattended on December 8, 2023, and again reviewed video footage of 325 Bleecker Street. No observations were made of the tenant. Police did, however, confirm there was no entry fob to the building registered to the unit. The affiant was unaware how the tenant was able to gain access to the building for the past six months. The affiant concluded this behavior, of a sole tenant of the unit, “only proves that he is attempting to remain undetected by TCHC and law enforcement.”
39The tenant, according to the ITO, had resided in this unit since 2018. It is unclear what the reference to the past six months meant. Did the building recently change to fobs to access the building? Or was this how long the officers had been investigating? There is no information that officers did any investigation to determine if the entry locks were in working condition or if it was broken and the fobs were not required to gain entry.
40The affiant was called by the Respondent to give evidence on this application. He confirmed no officers made any efforts to review the video footage from 325 Bleecker to confirm if a male fitting the description of “Omar” was observed in or around the building, or if any young males, alleged to be part of a gang, as described by the CS, were observed in the building.
41Police had information that several males entered the unit on a date in November 2023, yet no efforts were made to obtain footage or review video footage to confirm that information.
42The affiant made several bald assertions without explanation for the conclusory statements. The affiant stated the following within the ITO:
The affiant received confidential source information in the fall of 2023, in relation to two males “cooking (producing/manufacturing) and selling fentanyl”, specifically the St. Jamestown area.
One of the involved parties was also in possession of a firearm that “he claimed was for protection.”
Several gang members were cooking and selling fentanyl in the St. Jamestown area and were in possession of firearms. The CS provided nicknames for two of the males, “Lucas” and “Omar”.
Throughout the investigation, “Omar” was identified as Michael Mamo.
The Applicant was currently in possession of a quantity of fentanyl.
The CS confirmed that Mamo had been coming and going from the Bleecker street apartment on multiple occasions.
It is common for people involved in the illegal drug trade to utilize residential addresses to facilitate their involvement in the sale and distribution of these drugs.
The affiant believed the Applicant and “Al” were using the Bleecker and Wellesley street apartments to shield themselves to avoid detection from law enforcement to continue their distribution of fentanyl in safe places.
The affiant concluded those who are involved in drug trafficking become aware of the CCTV locations and blind spots, and that they use stairs instead of elevators, and cover their faces to avoid being connected to a specific address.
The affiant opined on the need for drug dealers to be able to protect their territory, customer base, and themselves which is usually done by possessing a firearm and making others aware.
The affiant stated, “Mamo has displayed his firearm in his waistband, and the CS has been able to see the firearms.”
The affiant concluded the Applicant was using two residential addresses to facilitate his involvement in the production/manufacturing, selling and distribution of fentanyl.
The affiant concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant was in possession of firearms and will be on him when outside of his residence or inside the unit when inside.
43The above conclusory statements are misleading because:
The CS provided information about “several” males using the Bleecker street apartment to prepare drugs for distribution not just “two”.
Nowhere in the materials filed with the court was there any information that the CS told police the individual known as “Omar” claimed to have the firearm for protection.
The statement that throughout the investigation, the male identified with a firearm was “Michael Mamo” is false or misleading. In fact, throughout the investigation, police were trying to determine the identity of “Omar”. As of October 3, 2023, police were unaware of “Omar’s” real name or identity.
There was no current information the Applicant was in possession of fentanyl.
The CS confirmed “Omar” had been coming and going from the Bleecker unit.
There is no information the Wellesley apartment was used for the distribution of fentanyl.
There is no information “Al” was distributing fentanyl – he allowed his apartment to be used by several males in exchange for money and drugs – but there was no information from the CS that “Al” distributed fentanyl or any other drug.
There is no information “Omar” had multiple firearms.
There is an absence of evidence that the Wellesley apartment was used for the distribution of fentanyl.
There is an absence of evidence connecting the Wellesley apartment to anyone or anything other than the Applicant.
44In terms of corroboration regarding information provided by the CS regarding “Omar”, the best the Crown could point to was:
“Omar” was described to be male black in his late teens to early 20’s and MTO checks established Michael Mamo was male Black and born in 2004 and was 19 years old on the date of his arrest.
The CS said the males were all “masked up” with black medical masks or full-face masks and hoodies. On December 8, 2023, an officer attended an office of the TCHC to review video footage for the Applicant’s apartment. Video footage from December 5, 2023, revealed the Applicant leaving his floor with a mask, however, the photo suggests the mask is not black, and much lighter in color. The individual is wearing light coloured pants and black upper clothing.
45The Applicant was never observed or seen by police at 325 Bleecker Street. Police made no efforts to look at the video footage of Bleecker Street to see if the Applicant had attended there. No efforts were made to conduct surveillance on the Applicant to see who he might associate with, whether he attends school or possessed an e-bike.
46Ultimately, the affiant concluded that further checks on involved parties led to “Omar” being identified as Michael Mamo. However, there was insufficient information in the ITO to establish or demonstrate how police came to this conclusion.
47Having concluded “Omar” was the Applicant, the only surveillance police conducted was to watch video footage of the 24th floor of the Wellesley apartment building on November 24, 2023 and December 8, 2023. Snips of video footage taken from November 24, 2023 at 10:02 p.m., and December 5, 2023 at 2:46 p.m., show the Applicant returning to and leaving his apartment unit respectively.
48Officers obtained information that the Applicant lived with his mother and sister. An officer determined when a key fob was used for the apartment it was being used by the Applicant’s mother. This led the affiant to conclude “this behaviour could be as result of parties attempting to bypass the security that has been put in place by TCHC.” There is no reference to how many fobs are assigned to the unit or whether the Applicant possesses a fob. Furthermore, the affiant concluded the Applicant comes and goes to the unit daily based on the video footage mentioned earlier. Again, the footage only referred to the Applicant having been seen on two occasions – November 24 and December 5.
49On the two occasions the Applicant is seen leaving his apartment or returning to it, there is no suggestion he is transporting or carrying any objects. No other investigation was conducted regarding the Applicant’s residence other than to confirm Michael Mamo resided there.
Were there Grounds for the Issuing Justice to Find the Applicant committed an offence and Evidence of the Offence would be located at the places sought to be searched?
50The Respondent conceded there were insufficient grounds to issue the search warrants, specifically, because it failed to adequately explain how police connected information received from a confidential source about “Omar” to the Applicant. With this lack of connection, the warrants should not have issued. I agreed.
51Further, the information provided by the confidential source does not provide any basis for the issuing justice to find there was a credibly based probability that the Applicant kept the firearm or controlled substances at his residence.
52Despite having received information from a CS for several months, police conducted practically no investigation. It was speculative to believe controlled substances and a firearm may be in the Applicant’s residence. In some circumstances, an inference may be available to an issuing justice that a firearm may be kept at a person’s residence, however, that inference was not available here.
53Put another way, the issuing justice could not have found i) that “Omar” was the Applicant and ii) there was a reasonable inference available that the Applicant kept his gun and controlled substances at the Wellesley apartment. The ITO contained scant evidence upon which the issuing justice could rely beyond the affiant’s speculation and conclusory statements.
54Accordingly, the Applicant’s s. 8 Charter rights were breached.
Additional Charter Breaches Raised
55Based on the Crown’s acknowledgment the search warrants should not have issued, the Applicant argued he was arbitrarily detained and subjected to a strip search at the police station, resulting in further violations of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.
i. Section 9 – Arbitrary Detention
56As a result of the Respondent conceding the warrant could not have issued, the Applicant raised further alleged Charter breaches including his “right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned”, as is protected by s. 9.
57In R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54, at para. 72, Jamal J. summarized the requirements for a lawful arrest including when a police officer orders another officer to make an arrest, the officer who directed the arrest must have had reasonable and probable grounds. The officer must have a subjective belief that the accused committed an offence, and that belief must be objectively verifiable. Police cannot rely on evidence discovered after the arrest to justify the subjective or objective grounds for the arrest.
58In this case, it was agreed the reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the Applicant derived directly from the search warrant. In the absence of a valid search warrant, the police did not have grounds to arrest the Applicant. It follows that the police did not have grounds to detain the Applicant for an investigation or search him whether incidental to arrest or as part of an investigative detention for officer safety. Therefore, the arrest in this case was invalid and the subsequent searches conducted incident to arrest were not authorized by law.
ii. Section 8 – Strip Search
59The Applicant argued his s. 8 Charter rights were further violated when the booking officer ordered a strip search prior to the Applicant being booked.
60There was no dispute the purpose of the strip search was to ensure there were no further drugs or weapons on the Applicant’s person. It was agreed the strip search was conducted in a manner that interfered as little as possible with the Applicant’s privacy and dignity.
61It was also not disputed the Applicant would not have raised this issue but for the concession that the warrant should not have issued.
62As there were insufficient grounds to issue the search warrants, there was no legal basis upon which to detain or arrest the Applicant. A precondition to a strip search is that the arrest must be lawful. Having determined the arrest in this case was not, the subsequent strip search was a violation of the Applicant’s s. 8 Charter rights.
Amplification to Establish the Identification of “Omar” as the Applicant
63The Respondent called the affiant on this application to amplify the information available to him at the time of drafting the ITO. The amplification was sought to be relied upon for the analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter: R. v. Griffith, 2025 ONCA 322, para. 24.
64The ITO included a paragraph regarding the identification of the Applicant, Michael Mamo. Prior to knowing the identity of “Omar”, the confidential source information was provided to a field intelligence officer. This officer obtained a photograph of a person believed to be “Omar” and provided it to the confidential source handler on August 17, 2023. The photograph, as described above, was shown to the CS who confirmed this was “Omar”.
65On October 3, 2023, the confidential source handler conducted a search of an individual known to police as a drug dealer on Instagram. The Instagram account was open, and the officer looked at the Instagram accounts the person was following. The officer identified a profile picture that he concluded was the same male in the photograph that was shown to the CS and identified as “Omar”. As an aside, no information was provided on why or what belief police had that this individual was a drug dealer.
66The username for this Instagram account was x2mdot. After further checks, a name of “Michael” was discovered. The officer did a global search for the words “Michael” and “Bleecker” which resulted in a 2023 GO report. After further checks on involved parties, the CS handler discovered the identity of “Omar” as Michael Mamo.
67The above was the extent of the information set out in the ITO of the efforts to identify “Omar” as the Applicant.
68The affiant testified at the time of drafting the ITO he was in possession of an 8-page document that set out the efforts and investigation the confidential source handler conducted to identify “Omar” as the Applicant. He summarized the content of the report and was satisfied there was sufficient information in the ITO. In hindsight, he testified it should have been made an appendix to the ITO.
69The document provided further details of how the police concluded “Omar” was the Applicant. The additional details set out the names of the other persons identified in the GO occurrence report with the Applicant. The author of the report stated the “14th hit included known Bleecker Street criminals close in age to “Omar”. The officer identified the two other names. The third name was the Applicant.
70The handler obtained and viewed an MTO photo of the Applicant and concluded the Applicant was in fact “Omar”. The actual MTO photo of the Applicant was not included in this 8-page document.
71A document that included confirmation of the affiant’s computer checks was introduced on this application. It confirmed the affiant conducted a MTO check of the Applicant on November 25, 2023. The Applicant’s MTO photograph was included in these materials. The Applicant’s photo depicts an individual who is much lighter in complexion than the person(s) depicted in the Instagram profile photo and the side profile photograph shown to the CS and identified as “Omar”.
72The CS was never shown the Applicant’s MTO photograph. Looking at the photographs, I am not satisfied the photograph identified as “Omar” by the CS is the Applicant, nor am I satisfied the person(s) in the photographs shown to the CS and on the Instagram profile is the same person depicted in the MTO photograph.
73Further, there was no information regarding where and when the photograph shown to the CS originated or how police obtained it.
74The affiant agreed he failed to consider including a sentence in the ITO that the Applicant was not known to police as a gang member or a drug dealer.
75The affiant agreed the only investigation he conducted regarding the Applicant was to confirm the Applicant’s address through computer checks and have other officers conduct surveillance to confirm the Applicant resided at Wellesley. He did not think it was necessary to direct officers to conduct any surveillance at Bleecker Street for the Applicant.
Section 24(2) Analysis
76As evidence was obtained in a manner that violated the Applicant’s Charter rights, I must assess and balance the effect of admitting the evidence having regard to the factors set out in R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32.
77Pursuant to s. 24(2), evidence obtained in violation of the Charter is excluded if its admission would, in all the circumstances, bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The focus of the inquiry is on the long-term impact of the admission of the evidence on the repute of the justice system: R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, paras. 67-70.
78In determining whether evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2), the Court must balance three factors in assessing the effect of admitting the evidence on society’s confidence in the justice system: (1) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct; (2) the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests of the accused; and (3) society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits: Grant, para. 71.
79The Respondent called evidence on the s. 24(2) hearing to demonstrate the affiant was in possession of a document that established the identity of “Omar” as the Applicant at the time he drafted the ITO and it was merely an oversight or mistake that the content of the information was not included in the ITO. The Respondent argued had the affiant included the report prepared by the confidential source handler in the ITO to demonstrate how the individual identified as “Omar” was identified to be the Applicant, sufficient grounds would have existed for the warrants to issue.
80The Crown acknowledged there is a high expectation of privacy in a residence, the police acted in good faith, and the evidence is both reliable and essential to adjudicating this case. For those reasons, the Respondent argued the exclusion of the evidence would undermine the administration of justice and should be admitted.
i) Seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct
81The first factor of inquiry under s. 24(2) asks whether the Charter-infringing state conduct is so serious that the court must dissociate itself from it. The spectrum of seriousness spans from, "inadvertent or minor violations of the Charter" to "willful or reckless disregard of Charter rights": Grant, para. 74.
82The more intentional, flagrant, or negligent the conduct, the greater the need for the court to dissociate itself from such conduct. A finding that a judicial authorization was obtained in the absence of reasonable and probable grounds is, in and of itself, a very serious breach of s. 8 that favors exclusion of the impugned evidence.
83The Respondent argued the first prong of the s. 24(2) analysis favours the admission of the evidence. The police complied with their legal obligations by seeking and obtaining judicial authorizations and accurately presenting the supporting evidence to the issuing justice. Any state conduct in this case allegedly infringing the Applicant’s Charter rights was consequently not serious.
84The shortcoming was the failure of the affiant to include all the information he had at his disposal that sought to establish “Omar” as the Applicant. This omission was not a deliberate attempt to mislead the justice or to act recklessly or even negligently in relation to the Charter rights of the Applicant. Rather, this imperfection in the ITO is more accurately described as simply the honest mistakes of an inexperienced police officer engaged in drafting one of his first ITOs and not being fully versed in all the nuances of his drafting obligations as an affiant. The affiant failed to appreciate the significance of the information omitted. Even though key corroboration linking the Applicant to “Omar” was inadvertently omitted from the ITO, the police nonetheless acted in good faith in seeking and executing a judicially authorized warrant. Therefore, this factor pulls weakly towards exclusion.
85The Respondent relied on Griffith, at para. 26, where O’Marra, (B.), J. (ad hoc) writing for the unanimous panel found where police reasonably believed they were acting on a valid search warrant the seriousness of the breach would be at the lower end and favour inclusion of the evidence as there was no wilful disregard of the individual’s Charter rights.
86In Griffith, the reviewing court found no bad faith and the issuing justice would not have been misled if the information known to the affiant had been included in the ITO. In fact, counsel on the appeal agreed had the information been included it would have provided reasonable grounds for the warrant to issue. That is not the situation before me.
87In this case, I find the affiant was negligent, and although it may not have been intentional, there were portions of the ITO that were misleading. It is troubling that the only information officers sought to corroborate from the confidential source was who lived at the Bleecker Street apartment. I addressed the officers’ failure to review video footage of Bleecker Street to corroborate information provided by the CS of the males attending the unit. The affiant did a further Versadex check on this unit on December 9, 2023, and discovered there had been an occurrence at the Bleecker Street apartment earlier that morning where a female had overdosed. Yet no efforts were made to review video footage from the evening before to ascertain if the Applicant or other males fitting descriptions provided by the CS were observed.
88There was no investigation conducted to corroborate the information provided by the CS that “Omar” was in possession of controlled substances and/or a firearm. There were no grounds to believe that drugs would be found at the Wellesley apartment, yet the affiant relied on this as a basis to obtain a search warrant to look for a firearm. The only basis upon which police believed a firearm may be in that apartment was premised on speculation and suspicion. The necessity to have reasonable grounds is a statutory requirement.
89A finding that a judicial authorization was obtained without reasonable and probable grounds is a very serious breach of s. 8. As George, J.A. found in R. v. T.G., 2026 ONCA 29, at para. 117, although the police did not deliberately set out to violate the Applicant’s Charter rights, the breach they committed was serious which pulled towards exclusion.
90Seeking to obtain a search warrant for a residence where there are no grounds to search is not acting in good faith. Instead, it demonstrated the inexperience of the officer or a lack of training and a total disregard for Charter protected rights. The fact that the warrant was wrongly granted cannot excuse the affiant’s own conduct. Negligence or lack of experience cannot be equated with good faith. This factor weighs heavily in favour of exclusion.
ii) Impact on the Charter-protected interest
91The second factor of the analysis examines the impact the breach has had on the Charter protected rights of the accused person. The more serious the impact on the accused person’s protected Charter interest, the more likely this factor will lean towards exclusion of the evidence. A warrantless intrusion into an individual’s home attracts a significant breach of the individual’s s. 8 Charter rights and is not a “moderate” breach of an individual's Charter rights.
92The Respondent does not dispute individuals have a significant privacy interest in their homes. Therefore, this factor would pull “moderately” towards exclusion of the evidence.
93The impact on the Applicant favours exclusion. The search warrant was executed in a residence where the Applicant had a very high expectation of privacy: R. v. Silveira, 1995 CanLII 89 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297, at para. 140. The impact on his Charter protected interests was serious: Griffith, para. 27.
94It is trite to say the search of one’s home is a significant intrusion on an individual’s privacy interest. This is not merely a “moderate” intrusion but a significant one which weighs in favour of exclusion of the evidence.
iii) Society's interest in the adjudication of the case on the merits
95The third factor is society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits. The third line of inquiry asks whether the truth-seeking function of the criminal trial process would be better served by admission of the evidence, or by its exclusion. This inquiry requires courts to consider both the negative impact of admission of the evidence on the repute of the administration of justice and the impact of failing to admit the evidence.
96Relevant factors include the reliability of the evidence, the importance of the evidence to the prosecution’s case, and the seriousness of the alleged offences.
97The evidence is physical evidence found on the Applicant’s person and in his home. The evidence is reliable. The Crown’s case is dependent on its admissibility. Exclusion of the evidence will result in an inability to continue the prosecution. The offences are extremely serious and include the seizure of two illegal firearms and a quantity of controlled substances. Illegal handguns pose a severe threat to public safety. These factors collectively support that the public has a strong interest in the adjudication of these offences on the merits. This factor weighs in favour of admission.
iv) Balancing the Factors
98The final balancing is a qualitative exercise and not a mathematical one. When balancing the Grant factors, the cumulative weight of the first two lines of inquiry must be balanced against the third line of inquiry: Beaver, para. 134. Where the first and second inquiries, taken together, make a strong case for exclusion, the third inquiry will seldom if ever tip the balance in favour of admissibility: R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, para. 142; R. v. Reilly, 2020 BCCA 369, 397 C.C.C. (3d) 219, at paras. 148-149, aff'd, R. v. Reilly, 2021 SCC 38, 75 C.R. (7th) 313.
99The admission or exclusion of the evidence in this case turns primarily on the insufficient grounds upon which the affiant sought a search warrant for the Applicant’s residence. This created a snowball effect which in turn impacted the Applicant’s unlawful arrest and further searches of his person.
100Had there been sufficient grounds to issue the search warrants, there would not have been a s. 9 violation. In terms of the police ordering a strip search at the station, had the arrest been lawful, I would have been satisfied the search was warranted in this case for the safety of the Applicant, others, and officers. The Applicant was found in possession of controlled substances and a firearm.
101I conclude the evidence in this case should be excluded. I have addressed the shortcomings in the ITO above and will not repeat it here.
Disposition
102Balancing all the factors, I am satisfied the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
103The application is granted and the evidence excluded at trial.
104After providing a bottom line and informing the parties the evidence would be excluded, the Applicant re-elected to a judge alone trial. The Crown offered no evidence, and the Applicant was acquitted of all charges.
105I would like to acknowledge counsel for their assistance in this matter.
Justice C. Rhinelander
Released: July 27, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Mamo, 2026 ONSC 4345
COURT FILE NO: CR-25-900000248-0000
DATE: 20260727
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
MICHAEL MAMO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice C. Rhinelander
Released: July 27, 2026