The defendant was charged with 46 counts under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.
He brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence, arguing that the search violated his s. 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
The defendant contended that the Information to Obtain lacked sufficient evidence that his residence was also his place of business, and that the search was therefore a fishing expedition.
The Crown argued that the Information to Obtain, reviewed holistically, contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support issuance of the warrant.
The court found that while the defendant's s. 8 Charter rights were violated due to insufficient evidence linking the residence to the business location, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the violation was minimal, the state did not act in bad faith, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits was strong.