The defence brought an application challenging the facial validity of a tracking warrant and multiple search warrants, alleging a breach of the Applicant's Section 8 Charter rights and seeking exclusion of seized evidence under Section 24(2).
In the alternative, the Applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant.
The court dismissed the application challenging the warrants' facial validity, finding that the Information to Obtain (ITO) provided sufficient credible and reliable evidence for the issuing justice to find reasonable and probable grounds.
The court applied the R. v. Debot factors for assessing confidential informant information, concluding the information was credible, compelling, and sufficiently corroborated.
While the warrants were upheld, the court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant on several specific areas, applying the R. v. Garofoli test, to ensure the Applicant could make full answer and defence.