Tyler Robert Botten

The accused brought a Dawson application seeking leave to cross-examine Detective Constable St. Cyr on his Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant of the accused's residence.

The court considered whether proposed cross-examination would assist in determining material issues, particularly the sufficiency of grounds for the warrant and the credibility and reliability of the confidential informants upon which the affiant relied.

The court granted partial leave to cross-examine on specific areas including clarification of terminology, the relevance of prior police occurrences, the length of time confidential informants were assigned numbers, and the basis for the affiant's assertions regarding informant credibility.

The accused were arrested based on a confidential informant tip indicating they possessed cocaine and oxycodone.

The Crown charged Adams with possession of oxycodone contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Harkness with possession for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in oxycodone.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and subsequent searches on Charter grounds.

The court found that the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, being based on a tip that spoke only of "possibilities" rather than credibly based probability.

The court also found violations of the right to counsel and unreasonable searches of the accused's person and cell phone.

All evidence obtained as a result of these violations was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

A young person was convicted of robbery committed during a home invasion on June 13, 2015.

The defendant, who was 15 at the time of the offence, was among a group that invaded a residence, held the complainant against her will, and ransacked the home stealing property valued at $5,348.23.

The defendant participated by searching for items to steal while the complainant was being held.

At sentencing, the Crown sought a deferred custody order of three months followed by probation, while defence counsel argued that probation alone would be sufficient.

The court found that the statutory conditions for imposing custody were not met, as the offence did not cause serious bodily harm and did not create a substantial likelihood of bodily harm.

The court imposed a 12-month probation order with conditions including restitution, community service, counselling, and a weapons prohibition.