The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained via search warrants, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained material omissions regarding the credibility and reliability of the primary source.
The court found that the police affiant breached the "full, fair, and frank" disclosure obligation due to severe negligence and inexperience, which subverted the pre-authorization process.
Although the corrected ITO could still have provided reasonable grounds for the warrants, the court exercised its residual discretion to set them aside, deeming the police conduct as "bad faith" for the purpose of this discretion.
Consequently, the searches were unauthorized and breached section 8 of the Charter.
Applying the Grant test under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct and the impact on the applicant's privacy interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence of serious firearms offences, leading to the exclusion of the handgun, conducted energy weapon, and brass knuckles found.
