The accused brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of firearms, ammunition, and related evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant.
The Crown conceded the redacted information to obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds to justify the warrant, establishing a breach of the accused’s s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure.
The court found the ITO not only deficient but materially misleading, particularly regarding the reliability and source of confidential informant information and the failure to disclose the informant’s criminal record or properly verify the information relied upon.
Applying the three‑part test from Grant, the court held that the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant privacy intrusion of searching a residence outweighed society’s interest in adjudication on the merits.
The seized evidence was therefore excluded.
