Stephen Ronald Byrne

The applicant, charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder, challenged a judicially authorized wiretap warrant, arguing it violated his s. 8 Charter rights due to alleged material omissions and misrepresentations in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

Specifically, he contended that the ITO failed to disclose his home address and house arrest status, which would have provided an innocent explanation for his mobile phone's location near the crime scenes.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's address was in fact present in the ITO, albeit not explicitly referenced in the mobile phone section, and that any omission was not deliberate.

The court concluded that even considering the omitted information, the totality of the evidence, particularly the coordinated movement and contact between the applicant's and a co-perpetrator's phones, provided sufficient grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The applicant, Steven Ruiz, brought a pre-trial application seeking to exclude evidence seized from his residence, alleging breaches of his section 7 and 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant was misleading, the police's dynamic entry into the property was unreasonable, and the manner of the search caused unnecessary damage and disarray.

Considering the cumulative effect of these serious Charter breaches, particularly the unlawful search based on an invalid warrant and the significant impact on the applicant's privacy interests, the court allowed the application and excluded all evidence obtained from the search pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant, Muhammad Madbouli, brought an application to exclude evidence seized from an apartment, alleging breaches of sections 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and 10(b) (right to counsel) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The police unlawfully seized keys during arrest, used them to locate and enter an apartment without a warrant, and significantly delayed the defendant's access to counsel for six hours.

The Crown conceded the Charter breaches.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court found the breaches serious, significantly impacting the defendant's rights, and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application was granted, and the evidence was excluded.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of a violent rivalry between two criminal groups, the Asian Assassinz and the Chin Pac, to establish motive and intention in a first-degree murder trial.

The respondent, alleged to be associated with the Chin Pac, was charged with the murder of an individual associated with the Asian Assassinz.

The defence opposed the admission of this evidence, citing prejudicial impact and lack of probative value.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, finding its probative value on motive and intention outweighed its prejudicial effect, provided appropriate limiting instructions were given to the jury.

In a criminal proceeding, the defence sought exclusion under section 24(2) of Charter evidence obtained through production orders for credit-card and phone records.

After Garofoli-related excisions and limited amplification, the court held the information to obtain did not support the TD Visa production order and found a section 8 breach for those records.

Applying R. v. Grant, the court found good-faith state conduct and a moderate informational-privacy impact, while emphasizing the reliability and trial importance of the records.

Balancing the Grant factors, the court declined to exclude the Visa records.

The defence exclusion application was dismissed, subject to the broader global section 24(2) ruling.

The accused brought a Charter s. 8 application following a Garofoli review seeking to exclude evidence obtained through search warrants executed at his residence.

The court addressed two reserved issues: whether the Information to Obtain properly supported a charge of intimidation of a justice system participant by “watching” police officers, and whether computers were properly included as items to be searched in a second warrant.

The court held that public online posts concerning dismantling G20 security fencing, combined with derogatory postings of police photographs, could reasonably support an inference that the accused intended to provoke fear in the general public.

The court further held that the discovery of chemical precursors, laboratory equipment, documents, and the accused’s extensive internet use provided reasonable grounds to search computers for records relating to the production of explosives.

The warrants were therefore properly supported.

The accused challenged the facial validity of two search warrants executed at his residence following a Garofoli ruling that some offences listed in the warrants were unsupported by the Information to Obtain.

The accused argued that the entire warrants must be quashed because the unsupported offences rendered the warrants invalid and could not be cured by severance.

The Crown submitted that the unsupported portions could be severed, leaving valid authorizations.

The court reviewed the doctrine of severability in the context of search warrants and held that where the invalid portions are clearly separable and not vital to the authorization, they may be excised without invalidating the remainder.

The court concluded that the unsupported offences and related items could be severed and that the remaining portions of the warrants constituted valid authorizations.