Challenge to validity of search warrants was dismissed

Ontario criminal | Criminal Law

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Unreasonable search and seizure [s. 8]

Challenge to validity of search warrants was dismissed

Accused was convicted of several offences involving possession of firearm and dangerous weapon. Accused’s applications under ss. 7, 8, and 9 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including his s. 8 application to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to search warrants obtained under Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, were dismissed. Warrants were based on information provided by confidential informant (CI), computer checks of police databases, and surveillance. Crown conceded that judicial summary of redacted information to obtain (ITO) could not support authorization of warrants. Crown’s application to have judge consider unredacted ITO was granted, accused’s s. 8 application was dismissed, evidence obtained in searches was admitted, and accused was convicted. Accused appealed convictions, challenging validity of search warrants on basis that they violated his s. 8 Charter rights. Appeal dismissed. Application judge did not err by not permitting accused to challenge sub-facial validity of redacted portions of ITO. Read as whole, application judge’s reasons made it clear that accused was permitted to make, and did make, sub-facial challenge to warrant. Application judge dismissed accused’s sub-facial challenge, finding that ITO did not omit any material facts concerning surveillance or that information provided was misleading. Application judge found that ITO was not misleading and that police conducted adequate investigation to corroborate CI’s tip. He dismissed accused’s request for additional information on basis that further disclosure could disclose CI’s identity. Judicial summary explained nature of redacted information and was sufficient to permit accused to challenge credibility of CI, whether information provided by CI was compelling, and whether CI’s information was corroborated.
R. v. Thompson (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 3240, 2017 ONCA 204, J. MacFarland J.A., K. van Rensburg J.A., and Grant Huscroft J.A. (Ont. C.A.).

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from Law Times.

Recent articles & video

Insurance lawyers reveal their referral philosophies

Court of Appeal rules auto insurer not liable for parental negligence claim stemming from accident

Refugee lawyers speak out on federal election campaign rhetoric

Employees of Aboriginal Legal Services join major union

Pro Bono Ontario to rename Ottawa help centre after David Scott

Chasm in opinions remains after statement of principles repeal

Most Read Articles

New equality measure approved by Law Society of Ontario as the statement of principles gets repealed

Judges call out lack of support for legal aid, pro bono amid MAG presence

Chasm in opinions remains after statement of principles repeal

Law students, paralegals can continue working on the same summary conviction matters